Politics Desk

It was early Wednesday morning when Edith Pfeffer and Carolyn Tallet became late-night TV stars, charming CNN hosts, producers and viewers alike with their earnest attempt to make sense of a mathematical snafu that had left the outcome of the Iowa caucuses hanging in the balance.

Pfeffer, who is chairwoman of the Clinton County Republican Central Committee, and Tallet, president of the Clinton County Republican Women’s Club, talked by phone with CNN hosts Wolf Blitzer and John King as the network tried to locate the final 3% of precinct tallies that would decide the winner of Iowa’s GOP presidential nominating contest.

The call resulted in eight minutes of hilarious, heartwarming television as the women tried to unscramble the math while King drew numbers on his special television screen and Blitzer pressed on for precision. (Watch the video below.)

Turns out Pfeffer had the missing tallies all night – they were phoned in less than an hour after the caucuses began, she said, but somehow weren’t counted by Republican Party officials.

Tallet told CNN that she learned just after midnight that the party was searching for the tallies, but couldn’t reach Pfeffer by phone.

“I knew they needed the information, and so I came to Edith’s home and pounded on the door and woke her up and got her up,” Tallet said.

“Do you know who carried this precinct?” King asked, referring to the precinct for which the state party said it had no votes. “…Who won?”

“Mitt Romney won with 51 votes,” Pfeffer said. “Rick Santorum and Ron Paul tied with 33 votes each.”

Double-checking, Blitzer asked Tallett and Pfeffer to give the totals for all precincts in Clinton County.

“Oh God, I added them up,” Pfeffer said, sparking giggles from the CNN crew offstage. “I added them up a couple times. I – oh, man.”

After they got the math all sorted out, Blitzer wanted to be sure he had the record straight.

“Just to be precise, we didn’t wake you up – the state chairs in Des Moines, they called you, they woke you up, is that right?”

“No!” Tallet said. “I woke her up…I was staying home watching CNN, waiting for the results, when I was told by the party. And so I came to wake up Edith, who didn’t answer her phone.”

The duo was such a hit that CNN called them back later in the night, once the results were official.

“I am just overwhelmed with all of this,” Pfeffer said. “I am just amazed because really and truly, my people did call this in tonight, and I don’t know where the glitch was…”

Pfeffer said she gave her county’s tallies to Romney campaign staff at the end of the night.

“And then I went to bed, and it’s been kind of interesting to wake up,“ she said.

kim.geiger@latimes.com

The National Enquirer’s parent company paid a Manhattan doorman $30,000 for a story it never published alleging that Donald Trump secretly fathered a child, according to news reports.

Former doorman Dino Sajudin told the story to the National Enquirer in late 2015, when Trump was the top contender for the Republican presidential nomination, the Associated Press and the New Yorker reported early Thursday.

Sajudin, who worked at Trump World Tower near the United Nations headquarters, told the National Enquirer that he’d heard from co-workers that Trump had “knocked up” one of his employees, who gave birth to a girl, according to documents posted on the website of Radar Online, a sister publication of the National Enquirer.

The supermarket tabloid requested a polygraph exam, and the examiner concluded that Sajudin was telling the truth about hearing the story, the documents say.

Four unnamed National Enquirer employees told AP that top editors, despite the polygraph results, ordered them to stop reporting the story.

Sajudin signed a contract with the tabloid’s parent company, American Media Inc., led by President Trump’s close friend David Pecker. Sajudin, who received the $30,000 in return for giving American Media exclusive rights to the story, agreed to pay a $1-million penalty if he failed to keep quiet, according to the AP and the New Yorker.

“I can confirm that while working at Trump World Tower, I was instructed not to criticize President Trump’s former housekeeper due to a prior relationship she had with President Trump which produced a child,” Sajudin told CNN on Thursday.

It is the second known case of American Media spending money in a way that protected Trump from a potentially harmful story during the 2016 presidential race — a practice known in the tabloid gossip world as “catch and kill.”

Days after Trump won his party’s presidential nomination, American Media paid former Playboy model Karen McDougal $150,000 for exclusive rights to her story of a nine-month affair with Trump, but never published it.

McDougal is suing to void the deal, alleging that her attorney was secretly colluding with Trump lawyer Michael Cohen.

Trump lawyer Michael Cohen is prized for his loyalty — and willingness to attack the president’s rivals »

The FBI raided Cohen’s office, home and hotel room this week under search warrants reportedly seeking records on McDougal’s nondisclosure deal with American Media.

The search warrant also reportedly sought records on a separate confidentiality agreement that Cohen reached in October 2016 with porn star Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford. He set up a shell company that paid Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet about Trump’s alleged 2006 sexual encounter with her.

It’s unclear what crimes federal authorities suspect were committed. But McDougal’s lawsuit charges that American Media’s $150,000 payment to her was an illegal secret donation that federal election law required the Trump campaign to publicly disclose.

Common Cause, a nonpartisan ethics group, has filed complaints with the Justice Department and Federal Election Commission alleging that the payments to McDougal and Daniels were illegal campaign contributions.

On Thursday, Common Cause submitted new complaints alleging the payment to Sajudin, too, was an unlawful attempt to influence the 2016 election by protecting Trump’s candidacy from bad publicity.

“Secret payments to hide affairs may have been commonplace in the president’s previous life as a tabloid figure, but when he became a candidate for the presidency, any new payments to safeguard his candidacy became violations of federal law,” said Paul S. Ryan, the vice president for policy and litigation at Common Cause.

Cohen acknowledged that he discussed Sajudin’s story with the National Enquirer when it was reporting on the allegations, but denied knowing in advance that the tabloid paid the former doorman $30,000, the AP reported.

Neither the AP nor the New Yorker named the woman who was alleged to have had Trump’s child about 30 years ago.

The documents posted by Radar Online indicate that the National Enquirer found in late 2015 that the woman was then living in Queens, and her daughter in Northern California.

Radar Online reported that despite the polygraph results, National Enquirer editors concluded after four weeks of investigating, that Sajudin’s story was false.

“When we realized we would be unable to publish, and other media outlets approached the source about his tale, we released Sajudin from the exclusivity clause that had accompanied his $30,000 payment, freeing him to tell his story to whomever he wanted,” Dylan Howard, the chief content officer at American Media, told Radar Online.

American Media, or AMI, led by longtime Trump friend Pecker, released a statement denying that Cohen or Trump had anything to do with its decision “not to pursue a story about a ‘love child’ that it determined was not credible.”

“The suggestion that David Pecker has ever used company funds to ‘shut down’ this or any investigation is not true,” the statement said. “In addition, AMI and Mr. Pecker emphatically deny any suggestion that there might have been be any ‘partnership’ created which might influence any business ties in regard to AMI. These claims are reckless, unsubstantiated, and false.”

The statement also quoted Howard defending the decision to not publish a story.

“Paying for information has long been a practice of The National Enquirer and to suggest that it has only paid for, and not run, stories about any particular person is absurd,” he said.

The former National Enquirer employees told the AP that the tabloid failed to pursue its standard reporting practices for proving paternity, such as exhaustive stakeouts.

In 2007, when the National Enquirer disclosed that Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards had fathered a child with a mistress, it did so in part by rummaging through a dumpster for material to use in a DNA test. Months later, Edwards admitted the story was true.

Edwards, a former U.S. senator from North Carolina, was tried on federal charges of using campaign money to hide the pregnant mistress from voters during the campaign. The case ended in an acquittal on one charge and a mistrial on five others.

michael.finnegan@latimes.com

Twitter: @finneganLAT

UPDATES:

6 p.m.: This article was updated with a statement from American Media Inc.

1:30 p.m.: This article was updated with Sajudin’s statement to CNN and background on John Edwards.

12:20 p.m.: This article was updated with new Common Cause complaint.

This article was originally published at 10:55 a.m.

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon issued an apology Tuesday for remarks made by Gen. Carl E. Mundy Jr., commandant of the Marine Corps, who said in a televised interview that black officers and those of other minority groups do not shoot, swim or read compasses as well as whites.

In a statement to reporters, Navy Capt. Michael Doubleday said that Mundy “regrets any offense that may have been taken by his statements,” which were televised Sunday on the CBS program “60 Minutes” as part of a segment on problems minority officers have receiving promotions.

Mundy’s comments on “60 Minutes” marked the third time this year that the commandant has caused a stir. In mid-August, the general abruptly issued orders that would have barred married persons from enlisting in the Marines. He was forced to rescind them immediately after a protest by the President.

Earlier, Mundy angered the Administration by vigorously opposing Clinton’s plan to lift the ban on homosexuals in the military. And he only grudgingly supported the resulting compromise “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that allows gays to serve but restricts their behavior.

Asked about the latest incident, Doubleday said that top Pentagon officials had no plans to discipline Mundy for his comments but added that, partly as a result, Navy Secretary John H. Dalton had ordered a complete review of minority promotions in the Navy and Marine Corps.

Dalton “would like to see more minorities in positions of leadership” in the Navy and Marine Corps and wants the study “to examine the process and to determine how we can achieve that objective,” Doubleday said.

A spokesman for California Rep. Ronald V. Dellums (D-Oakland), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said it was unclear whether the lawmaker would want to meet with Mundy over the incident. Dellums, who is black, plans hearings later this year on racism in the military.

Mundy’s remarks on “60 Minutes” were contained in a transcript provided by the Pentagon. Asked why some minority officers complain that they are not being promoted rapidly, the general said it “has to do with performance.”

“In the military skills, we find that the minority officers do not shoot as well as the non-minorities . . .,” he said. “They don’t swim as well. And when you give them a compass and send them across the terrain at night . . . they don’t do as well at that sort of thing.

“I’m saying that there are problems that we have got to identify that will show us what it is that causes us to promote at a reduced rate,” the general went on, in a brief segment on the program. “It is not intended that we do that.”

Doubleday said Tuesday that Mundy was referring only to the “objective test scores achieved in certain skills during initial entry-level training” and did not mean to suggest that members of minority groups could not do well in the Corps.

“He (Mundy) would like to see more minorities in positions of leadership,” the Pentagon spokesman added.

And the Marines issued a statement saying that, because only part of the interview with Munday was telecast, “it may have sounded . . . that he was implying minorities have less innate ability . . . to fully develop their military capability through training and education.”

“That was not his intent or belief,” the statement went on.

“As an institution, the Marine Corps is totally committed for equal opportunity for all individuals to compete and advance through the ranks, and is aggressively pursuing initiatives to gain balance in our senior officer representation.”

White House officials said Tuesday that they had not been aware of Mundy’s comments but were looking into the matter.

Pentagon figures show that in fiscal 1991, there were 34,200 black enlisted men and women in the Marine Corps–19.7% of the total–and 980 black officers, or 5.1% of the service’s officer corps. Figures for Latinos and other minority groups were not immediately available.

Stephen Cloobeck — a one-time California gubernatorial candidate ensconced in Democratic political circles — pleaded not guilty to witness tampering charges Friday related to a burglary case against his former paramour, OnlyFans model Adva Lavie.

Cloobeck, 64, was arrested in May and charged with three counts of attempting to dissuade a witness from testifying and one count of harassment for making annoying phone calls, according to a criminal complaint. Cloobeck allegedly contacted Lavie’s attorney, swore at him and threatened him, his property and members of his family, according to the complaint.

Cloobeck’s former girlfriend, Lavie, was charged in March with burglarizing the homes of older wealthy men she met through dating apps.

The pair have since broken off their engagement, according to the California Post.

He entered a plea of not guilty Friday morning during a brief court appearance in Van Nuys. His next hearing date was set for October. David Chesnoff, who was part of the legal team that defended Robert Durst during his Los Angeles murder trial, appeared on Cloobeck’s behalf.

The defendant and his legal team declined to speak with a throng of reporters outside the courthouse. Cloobeck remains free on $300,000 bond.

Cloobeck got rich in the timeshare industry, eventually selling his Las Vegas-based Diamond Resorts company to a private equity firm for $2.2 billion. He immersed himself in Nevada Democratic politics, growing close with the late U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, and later launched a long-shot bid for California governor.

He quickly faded in the crowded field, failing to garner above 1% in any poll, and then threw his support behind Democrat Eric Swalwell, who dropped out of the race in disgrace amid a torrent of sex assault and harassment allegations, which he denied.

According to prosecutors, Lavie posed as the girlfriend of numerous men between 2023 and 2025 before pilfering cash, gold and high-value items from homes in Westlake Village, West Hollywood, Los Angeles and Beverly Hills, according to the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office. She has also pleaded not guilty.

Prosecutors have yet to say exactly how Cloobeck allegedly threatened Lavie’s possible victims. Lavie’s attorney, Lou Shapiro, has declined to discuss the case with The Times.

Lavie was arrested again last week on a new theft charge out of Riverside County. Responding officers from the Beverly Hills Police Department noticed she was not wearing the ankle monitor she was required to keep on as a condition of her bail last week, leading L.A. County prosecutors to file a new misdemeanor count against her.

She is scheduled to appear in the Van Nuys Courthouse early Monday.

In the days since he charged a Los Angeles police officer with a crime for capturing evidence of his co-workers’ racist remarks, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman has been the subject of withering criticism from Mayor Karen Bass, former cops and even some of his own prosecutors.

The chorus of voices decrying the filing of 16 counts of felony eavesdropping against Officer Daniel Flores — who caught fellow officers on tape using slurs and making derogatory remarks about Asians, Mexicans, Black people and women in the LAPD’s Training Division in 2024 — say the charges will dissuade other officers from reporting corruption and raise questions about Hochman’s commitment to police accountability.

“The bottom line is that the alleged racist, sexist, and homophobic comments made are outrageous and unacceptable,” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said in a statement to The Times on Tuesday. “While I understand that it is inappropriate and a crime to record colleagues without their consent, those charges certainly send the wrong message that calling out egregious behavior could land you in prison.”

Six L.A. County prosecutors — all speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss the case candidly — also said in recent days they were shocked by Hochman’s decision to charge Flores.

One referred to the filing as “insane,” while another suggested Flores’ case should have been dismissed in the interest of justice.

On Friday, the district attorney’s office made public a 27-page motion asking for a lengthy preliminary hearing in the case. The filing alleged Flores deceptively edited the recordings to hide his own insensitive remarks. Several of the officers whom Flores taped said he often talked about wanting to win the “LAPD lottery,” meaning he intended to sue the department and retire on his winnings, according to the motion.

“[Flores] often starts the recordings in mid-conversation,” the district attorney said in an interview Friday. “Many people talk about the fact that he initiated some of these discussions, that he participated in some of these discussions. You’ll hear references to comments he made. Usually he has edited out his comments.”

The motion — which relies heavily on representations made by the officers whose comments Flores exposed — alleges Flores “manipulated conversations by initiating or participating in discussions about a particular topic before activating the recording device, then ceasing his own participation.”

Hochman said the recordings contain evidence that Flores made sexist remarks and referred to a group of people as “f—ing Crips.” It was not clear how referencing the infamous L.A. gang was, on its own, racist.

Flores’ attorney, Alan Jackson, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Flores is due in court for an arraignment on Monday.

Some of Hochman’s own prosecutors said the charges look bad considering the district attorney’s suspect record in police accountability cases.

“Optics are terrible,” one prosecutor said, questioning whether Hochman was pressured to act by police unions, which made heavy contributions to his 2024 campaign.

Since taking office, Hochman has moved to dismiss a number of violent use-of-force cases against police and resolved others with lenient plea deals. He also either dismissed charges or offered no-jail plea deals to four former Torrance police officers who had been accused of crimes after they were implicated in the department’s infamous racist text scandal.

One prosecutor also said the Flores case is unwinnable and will certainly fail before a jury.

“Just because a law is broken doesn’t necessarily mean you are going to get 12 jurors in L.A. to convict,” the prosecutor said.

Flores turned over 122 recordings of his colleagues’ commentary to the LAPD Office of the Inspector General early last year, according to the motion filed Friday. An amended criminal complaint submitted in late July suggested the recordings were then used as evidence against Flores by LAPD officials who sought to punish him.

Flores has said he heard co-workers refer to Black people as “monkeys” who like grape soda and eat watermelon between basketball games, according to a retaliation lawsuit he filed last year. The suit claims Flores also heard colleagues call female officers “bitches” who couldn’t be trusted and alleged a supervisor said Mexican L.A. Dodgers legend Fernando Valenzuela died of septic shock because he “ate too many” tacos.

In the motion made public Friday, Hochman argued that Flores made the recordings, in part, to support his civil suit. Several of the officers quoted in the motion said Flores said he had anxiety about wearing a police uniform or going on patrol and wanted to retire to become a “stay at home Dad,” according to the motion.

The motion also provided more information about the alleged insensitive discussions than has been previously reported. One of the officers recorded by Flores admitted to describing a potential LAPD recruit as “rapeable” because they were “someone who could be taken advantage of,” according to the motion.

“The use of the phrase ‘rape’ was not in a sexual context,” the motion read.

The officers also suggested in the D.A.’s motion Flores was a habitual liar. He became embarrassed after he was caught fabricating or embellishing stories about playing college baseball, responding to protest scenes and an award he won in the police academy, according to the motion.

The motion said that an internal affairs sergeant found many of the allegations Flores made concerning officers in the recruitment unit improperly disqualifying candidates based on appearance and falsifying time sheets were not supported by evidence.

When he announced the charges last week, Hochman said that while the comments captured by Flores were deplorable, he couldn’t turn a blind eye to a blatant violation of the state’s two-party consent recording statute. With few exceptions, it is a crime in California to record a conversation without the consent of all parties involved.

Hochman said Friday that Flores is not protected by whistleblower laws because, although the recordings exposed bigoted speech, they did not prove evidence of a crime by any of the other officers. He also said the comments were not hateful in nature. At multiple points, the motion refers to the comments as “locker room” talk.

Many of the officers told investigators they made the crude comments “in a sort of joking, sort of locker room banter context. In hindsight these things are insensitive … but you’ll have for instance a Black individual making comments about Blacks,” Hochman said. “You’ll have an Asian individual making insensitive stereotypical comments about Asians.”

Hochman said the prosecution was meant to deter rogue police actions rather than silence whistleblowers. He likened what Flores did to a detective using illegal means to record a drug dealer or gang member.

Hochman said Flores should have reported his colleagues’ misconduct to internal affairs or the LAPD’s inspector general. But California Department of Justice records show there were 4,878 allegations of racial bias made against LAPD officers in the last decade, and the department upheld only three of those complaints.

Presented with those statistics at a news conference Thursday, LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell did not respond directly to a question about how Flores could possibly have faith in an internal probe. McDonnell said Flores’ complaint triggered an investigation into 18 other officers, all but one of whom faced sustained disciplinary complaints.

He declined to say what sanctions the officers faced. An LAPD spokesperson declined to elaborate.

The district attorney’s office has been less aggressive in prosecuting those who made surreptitious recordings in the past.

When asked to pursue charges against those who secretly recorded several City Council members making racist remarks during a meeting at the L.A. County Federation of Labor’s headquarters, the district attorney’s office found a crime had been committed but referred the case to the L.A. city attorney’s office for misdemeanor filing in 2024. Ultimately, no charges were filed.

Last year, the D.A.’s office opted not to bring charges in a different case involving an LAPD officer in possession of a secret recording.

In that case, the ex-girlfriend of Brandon Tilford provided the department with an audio recording he had texted her in January 2024, according to a rejection memo by prosecutors. In the recording, an unidentified police officer is heard saying, “Officer walks through processing and goes, man, this is f— Planet of the Apes in here” in an apparent reference to Black inmates. Tilford texted his former girlfriend, “That’s my sgt btw lol.”

But prosecutors said there was insufficient evidence to bring charges because the girlfriend couldn’t identify the officers in the recording or say who made it. Thus, prosecutors reasoned that they could not prove Tilford created the recording and did so without the others’ knowledge.

Retired LAPD Cmdr. Lillian Carranza said she understood why Flores “might feel compelled to gather evidence to substantiate serious allegations,” given how the department has handled past whistleblower cases.

“For me, the difficult question is not whether evidence should be gathered, but where the line should be drawn,” said Carranza, a 36-year department veteran who successfully sued the city several times for misogyny and sexual harassment. “Gathering evidence over days or even weeks to document ongoing misconduct is one thing. Doing so over many months raises different legal and ethical questions.”

Hochman said the sheer volume of recordings, and the fact that Flores is a sworn law enforcement officer, played a role in the decision to file felony charges.

The union that represents front-line public defenders also seized on the controversy, saying in a statement that Hochman’s decision sent a clear message to others who may want to report wrongdoing: “keep quiet, or you will be the one facing trial.”

The department has long had a policy that forbids retaliation against officers who report misconduct.

But in practice, LAPD insiders say, those who come forward with compromising information get little support. The department is facing scores of lawsuits by officers who claim they faced retaliation after speaking out in the form of poor job evaluations, harassment, demotions and even termination.

A state judge Thursday rejected a challenge to how California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office summarized a strict new voter ID measure on November ballots — ruling that the summary language accurately describes the measure’s effects were it to pass.

Another judge dealt the backers of the measure a second loss by tentatively finding that their description of the measure, submitted for the official state voter’s guide, was misleading. They had claimed that Proposition 39 would make voting easier.

In the first case, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Jennifer K. Rockwell ruled that the label, title and summary of the certified ballot measure accurately describe Proposition 39 as a measure that “prohibits citizens from voting” — language the measure’s backers specifically objected to — unless they provide a government-issued ID.

According to minutes from a Thursday hearing on the matter, Rockwell concluded that, to the extent the measure’s backers object to that language, they are objecting to “the provisions of the measure itself.”

Rockwell rejected the argument put forth by the measure’s backers that it would not prevent people without ID from voting, only their votes from being counted — a distinction the judge found lacking.

Both parties had asked the court to move quickly ahead of printing deadlines for November ballots.

The attorney general’s office is responsible for preparing titles and summaries for ballot measures, and is not required by law to use the same language as a measure’s proponents when gathering the necessary voter signatures to place the measure on the ballot.

Bonta’s office had argued in court that his office applied the same standard of review to the voter ID measure as every other ballot measure that has come before his office.

Bonta praised Rockwell’s decision on social media Thursday, writing that it “confirms what we have said from the start: the ballot materials at issue — the ballot title and summary and ballot label — give a true and impartial statement of Proposition 39’s chief purpose and points.”

“My office followed the law and fulfilled its duty to provide California voters with clear, accessible, and accurate information,” he wrote. “We’re pleased that the court agreed with us.”

California Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), the chief backer of the court challenge and chairman of the group Reform California, responded to the ruling with a video post to social media, writing that it was “expected” but nonetheless “disappointing.”

DeMaio accused Bonta of trying to “manipulate the vote” with “rigged” language, and Rockwell of being a “liberal judge” who had unsurprisingly decided that Bonta “gets to do corruptly what he wants to do.”

“It’s pissing me off,” DeMaio said in his video post.

DeMaio predicted that Proposition 39 will still pass, but that it will take “all of us spreading the word that the attorney general has tried to manipulate the title on the ballot measure.”

Voter ID requirements are being pushed by Republicans across the country — from President Trump down — as necessary to prevent voter fraud, including by noncitizens, despite elections experts saying that such fraud is exceedingly rare and that there is no evidence that it exists in volumes large enough to swing elections.

Democrats, including in California, have argued that states already have robust measures to ensure that only eligible voters cast ballots, including through existing security measures such as signature verification. They said stricter voter ID requirements would lead to eligible voters without ready access to documents being denied access to voting — including poorer, elderly and rural voters and married women who have changed their names.

A majority of California voters back stricter voter ID requirements, according to recent polls.

The Trump administration has been pressing for new voter ID requirements nationwide, including in Congress, without success.

Passage of Proposition 39 in liberal California would represent a massive win for the administration and a setback for California’s Democratic leaders. It would require substantial reforms to how the state accepts ballots both in person and through the mail — the latter being the preferred option for the vast majority of voters in recent California elections.

Backers of Proposition 39 also took a hit in a separate court proceeding Thursday, where another judge — siding with top Democratic lawmakers — issued a tentative finding that the measure’s backers were misleading voters by claiming in voter guide language that the measure would make voting easier in the state were it to pass.

“It is hard to conceive how it would be ‘easy’ or ‘easier’ to vote if a voter has to take the extra step of either bringing government-issued identification when voting in person or search for their government-issued identification and supply the last four digits if they vote by mail,” wrote Sacramento Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang.

The voter guide language will need to change as a result.

California leaders who brought the challenge — including State Senate President Pro Tempore Monique Limón (D-Goleta) and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) — praised the decision.

“Prop 39 is a MAGA-backed power grab by Donald Trump’s closest allies,” Rivas said in a statement. “As today’s ruling underscores, Prop 39 isn’t about election security or fair elections — the real goal of the MAGA activists who wrote Prop 39 is to make it harder for Californians to vote.”

DeMaio denounced the decision, accusing Chang of having “sided with the politicians” in California to “strike legitimate arguments on why Voter ID is needed to improve election integrity.”

WASHINGTON — Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana, said Friday he will vote to confirm Todd Blanche as attorney general, likely delivering the decisive vote needed to push President Trump’s embattled nominee to oversee the Justice Department.

Cassidy, who had expressed reservations about Blanche’s nomination, had been the last undecided Senate Republican, and his support all but locks in the 50 votes Blanche needs to be confirmed after two other GOP moderates — Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine — said they would vote no. All Senate Democrats are expected to oppose the nomination.

Speaking from the Senate floor, Cassidy acknowledged Blanche was an imperfect pick, but that he had come to the conclusion that he would be better positioned to lead the Justice Department than another candidate, in part because he “knows the law.”

“Mr. Blanche is not perfect and he will tell you this,” Cassidy said. “But the choice is not between perfection and Mr. Blanche. It is between Mr. Blanche and another acting attorney general, who may not run the department effectively under President Trump and who indeed may not be as good as Mr. Blanche.”

Cassidy, who lost his reelection bid to a Trump-backed challenger, said he is aware his decision will come with criticism, but said: “What’s new?” He then appeared to become emotional, as he assured his constituents that he worked “hard to understand the issue and make the right decision.”

The Louisiana lawmaker’s decision puts Blanche’s turbulent nomination process back on course. His path to confirmation was complicated over his involvement in a settlement agreement that included the creation of a nearly $1.8-billion so-called anti-weaponization fund that would have been used to pay Trump allies, including Jan. 6 rioters.

In an order issued Sunday night, Blanche declared the settlement dead. It was seen as an effort to appease GOP senators who threatened to block his confirmation. Despite the promise to terminate the settlement, Murkowski said she was worried the Trump administration could proceed with the proposed compensation fund, noting that the Senate only had leverage over the fund because Blanche’s nomination is pending.

“Once we vote, that will end, and there is no telling what the future holds,” she said.

The Justice Department also clarified in writing that a tax audit immunity agreement, which was part of the settlement agreement Blanche negotiated, would apply only to claims open at the time of the settlement and does not protect Trump from examination of future tax filings.

It also makes clear that only the parties that brought the lawsuit — Trump, two of his sons and the Trump Organization — are covered by the tax agreement. The fund and the immunity were the result of the settlement reached after Trump, two of his sons and their businesses sued the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of tax documents.

Lawmakers and legal experts have questioned the lawfulness of the tax protections for Trump. A federal judge who oversaw the IRS case has described Trump’s lawsuit as an improper exercise in self-dealing, and on Thursday the union representing IRS workers asked another judge to block the immunity agreement.

Trump has continued to support the idea of the fund and told reporters this week that he would still like to compensate Jan. 6 rioters, who he said have been “hurt so badly.”

Asked about Trump’s continued support for the fund on Tuesday, the day the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced Blanche’s nomination, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said “there’s nothing we could do” to change Trump’s mind on it.

“Well, there’s nothing we could do to rein in the president when he said he likes the fund and he wishes it still exists. But the fact of the matter is it’s dead, and that’s all we could do under these circumstances,” Cornyn said.

When Cassidy announced his decision, Blanche was in Colombia, leading a U.S. presidential delegation to the inauguration of the country’s new president, Abelardo de la Espriella. As of Friday afternoon, he had not commented on the developments in Capitol Hill.

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, posted on social media a news article with only its headline: “Todd Blanche wins votes for Senate confirmation.”

This article includes reporting from the Associated Press.

Washington does not have a single policy toward Venezuela. On the contrary, since January 3, it has shown two distinct tracks that, for now, avoid colliding. The first is executed by the White House—a pragmatic, gradual strategy willing to bring opposition figures beyond María Corina Machado and Edmundo González to the negotiating table. The second has been maintained by Congress since the removal of Nicolás Maduro, most recently taking the form of a bipartisan Senate resolution that insists both remain the legitimate leaders of the opposition. The real question here is not which of these two faces will prevail, but why it serves US interests for both to exist simultaneously.

The past week showed how the board is functioning. On August 1, Jorge Rodríguez and Dinorah Figuera initiated dialogue over the phone between Delcy Rodríguez’s “government” and the remnants of the 2015 National Assembly, with the Trump administration acting as sponsor. Four days later, the Senate resolution reaffirmed González as president-elect, aligned with the administration’s stated goal of free elections while recognizing the electoral illegitimacy of Delcy Rodríguez. Caught between these two approaches, Marco Rubio asked Venezuelans for patience (“months, not years”) regarding elections, while Democratic Representative Jonathan Jackson (who had traveled to Caracas in July with the House delegation) revealed that even within Congress, there is no single consensus on what the US should be doing in Venezuela. Still, the simple fact that a Democrat secured permission to travel with the delegation speaks volumes.

Two paths, one destination?

For the White House, Venezuela has ceased to be—if it ever fully was—a matter of democratic principles, morphing instead into an equation of stabilization: energy, migration, and hemispheric security. Secretary Rubio’s three phases lay this out frankly: economic stabilization, recovery and reconciliation, and transition. This sequence shifts US priorities from democratic ideals to transactional metrics.

The IMF mission making headway in Caracas, Energy Secretary Chris Wright’s focus on the oil sector, and Rubio’s comparisons to transitions that took “nearly three and a half years” in countries like Paraguay and Spain confirm that the White House is prepared to manage Venezuela’s political timeline in a gradual, controlled manner, avoiding disruptions that could impact oil prices. Congress, on the other hand, bears no such executive burden. It can afford to speak the language of principles because it doesn’t have to sit down and negotiate barrels or deadlines.

Shielding that stance in a bipartisan manner is, at its core, a way to ensure US tutelage over Venezuela survives beyond Trump.

The Trump administration excluded Machado and Edmundo González from the process launched on August 1, a fact both publicly confirmed while clarifying that they would not stand in its way. Their seats at the table were filled by Dinorah Figuera and a delegation from the 2015 National Assembly. While this group does not answer directly to Machado’s party, it comprises members of Primero Justicia and Voluntad Popular, two parties that have consistently backed Machado and González throughout.

Meanwhile, the Senate resolution does the exact opposite: it explicitly names Machado and González as the legitimate leaders, describing Delcy Rodríguez as someone lacking an electoral mandate who would be unlikely to win a free election. It is a text that leaves no room for the ambiguity the White House grants itself.

Why this shift in signal? My first response would be that Congress—and particularly the Foreign Affairs committees in both chambers—operates under an institutional incentive distinct from Trump’s: surviving electoral cycles and administrative turnover. A resolution that anchors the recognition of legitimacy to Machado and González does not depend on who occupies the White House in 2029. Shielding that stance in a bipartisan manner is, at its core, a way to ensure US tutelage over Venezuela survives beyond Trump, even if the next occupant of the Oval Office chooses to change course.

Who are the players and what are their interests?

On the congressional chessboard, it is worth examining who the key players are—a crucial detail with the November midterm elections fast approaching.

In the Senate, the Foreign Relations Committee is chaired by Jim Risch (R), with Jeanne Shaheen (D) as ranking member. The Western Hemisphere Subcommittee is chaired by John Curtis (R) alongside Tim Kaine (D). Here lies the first key detail: Shaheen, the prominent Democratic voice who co-led the August 4 resolution with Ted Cruz (R), announced she will not seek reelection in 2026. She is retiring from Congress, but leaving this text as a legacy, which deprives Trump of a critical Democratic counterpart willing to apply public pressure.

Committee Chair Risch is on the ballot this November, while John Cornyn (a Republican who has been critical of Trump) is retiring, allowing him to adopt a harder line on foreign policy even when it diverges from the administration’s stance. Cruz, by contrast, does not face voters again until 2030, insulating him from immediate electoral pressures—making it no coincidence that he is leading the toughest resolution against the Delcy regime.

In the House, the Foreign Affairs Committee consists of over fifty members. It is chaired by Brian Mast (R), who led the July delegation to Caracas, with Gregory Meeks (D) as ranking member. The Western Hemisphere Subcommittee (which has served as the key House venue shaping the tone toward Venezuela) is chaired by María Elvira Salazar (R) with Joaquín Castro (D) as ranking member, alongside 13 other members (six Republicans and five Democrats).

A Congress with more elected Democrats, or with Republicans who survived tough races where voters demanded tangible results, will push harder to ensure the process unfolding in Venezuela moves beyond rhetoric.

All thirteen members are seeking reelection in 2026, meaning their moves leading up to November could either preserve Republican control of the committee or shift its leadership to the Democrats. Another detail worth noting is that Michael Lawler (R)—representing one of three Republican districts won by Kamala Harris in 2024—flirted for months with a run for New York governor before deciding in July to stay in his House seat to avoid risking the Republican majority. It is the same logic that kept Castro from running for the Senate in Texas. In a Congress where every seat matters, even figures with national ambitions end up staying put.

Another factor connecting the midterms directly to the Venezuelan community—particularly those in South Florida—is the special election in November to fill the remainder of the Senate term left vacant by Marco Rubio when he became Secretary of State. Given Florida’s demographic makeup, that seat cannot afford to be detached from US policy toward Venezuela. Furthermore, the seat will be up for election again in 2028, requiring anyone competing for it to keep their stance on Venezuela front and center.

Analyzing these congressional actors reveals that the pursuit of bipartisanship on Venezuela—a staple of foreign policy since 2014—appears to be a mechanism for institutionalizing US tutelage, regardless of who occupies the Oval Office. What could change (and likely will after November) is the execution. A Congress with more elected Democrats, or with Republicans who survived tough races where voters demanded tangible results, will push harder to ensure the process unfolding in Venezuela moves beyond rhetoric into a concrete transition.

What this means for Venezuelans

Amid all these tensions are the Venezuelan people, and this is where the gap between Washington and Caracas becomes most uncomfortable. The August 1 dialogue addresses earthquake relief, democratic strengthening, and political guarantees: a modest agenda compared to the demands set by the Senate. Meanwhile, real money is flowing into Venezuela through the IMF mission, energy cooperation, and the capital accompanying the “economic stabilization” phase Rubio outlined. Here, despite its strong resolutions, Congress exercises little actual oversight over how negotiations are conducted or where that money goes, as foreign policy decisions and economic licenses ultimately rest with the Executive branch.

Rather than leaving all these levers to executive discretion, Congress could take a far more active role.

This is why symbolic resolutions fall short. If Congress wants its recognition of Machado and González to be more than a gesture, it possesses concrete tools it has yet to fully deploy, such as: (i) conditioning any sanction relief or oil license on mandatory reporting regarding the destination of funds entering Venezuela; (ii) requiring the State Department to brief Congress periodically on the status of the August 1 dialogue; and (iii) tying the approval of new economic licenses to verifiable negotiation milestones, such as the release of political prisoners, the appointment of Supreme Court (TSJ) magistrates or new National Electoral Council (CNE) rectors, and ultimately the publication of an electoral timetable.

Rather than leaving all these levers to executive discretion, Congress could take a far more active role. None of this requires Congress to act as a negotiator—only to stop being a passive spectator in a process funded partly through money within its jurisdiction. For Venezuelans who have waited more than two decades for a genuine transition, the question is not just whether Machado and González remain recognized by the United States, but whether anyone in Washington will be held accountable for what is being negotiated in their name.

Both sides of this coin prompt us to ask: To what extent is the “transition” an act in which Venezuelans actually hold decision-making power? How far do US interests truly align with improvements for the Venezuelan people? Are we willing to prioritize institutional strength over the leadership of the moment? There will be as many answers as there are Venezuelans. What we can say for certain is that in this process, the United States is playing a role far beyond that of a mere “watchdog.” It is actively building an “institutional” tutelage.

President Trump targeted birthright citizenship again Thursday by signing a pair of executive orders purporting to narrow it — including by cracking down on “birth tourism” and limiting which children born to immigrants in the U.S. qualify.

The new orders follow a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that rejected an attempt by Trump to end birthright citizenship outright.

During a signing ceremony in the Oval Office, Trump called that decision by the high court “very unfair” and said the new orders were an attempt to end birthright citizenship by other means.

“Our country suffers because of it, and we’re ending it a different way,” he said.

Trump promised “big crackdowns” on birth tourism, or the practice of pregnant foreign mothers coming to the United States, or foreign fathers using surrogates already in the U.S., specifically to ensure their children receive U.S. citizenship.

Trump said an entire industry has been built up around the practice, turning birthright citizenship into “a joke.”

“Wealthy people are building businesses around birthright citizenship. That’s not the way it’s supposed to work. It’s a disgrace,” he said. “They’re buying their way in, and we’re not going to let it happen.”

The orders were immediately criticized by proponents of birthright citizenship as an indefensible attempt by the president and his administration to make an end run around the Supreme Court’s clear finding that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution cannot be undone by the president.

The amendment reads in part, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

In an apparent response to the president’s new orders, California Gov. Gavin Newsom posted that exact language to the social media platform X. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) also responded on the platform, writing, “Trump doesn’t understand the Constitution — but the 14th Amendment’s promise of birthright citizenship and equality speaks for itself.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement that Trump’s “continued crusade to end birthright citizenship is blatantly illegal,” that Democrats would challenge the orders, and that the president had “set himself up for yet another loss in the courts.”

“If you are born in America, you are American — period. The Constitution says it and the Supreme Court has affirmed it,” Schumer said.

A spokesperson for California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office, which successfully sued alongside other Democrat-led states to block Trump’s first order purporting to end birthright citizenship, said attorneys there were reviewing the latest orders late Thursday.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which also sued to block the first order, denounced the new orders — and predicted they, too, would fall.

“The Supreme Court already decided this issue: Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Constitution. No additional executive order can change the meaning of the Constitution,” Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement. “Any executive order that tries to rewrite birthright citizenship will meet the same fate as the last one.”

Trump’s order on birth tourism defines the practice as “the entry of any foreign national into the United States via a nonimmigrant visa for the purpose of giving birth on American soil,” or “any effort by any foreign national to facilitate” such entry.

It orders the Homeland Security and State departments to ramp up controls to block such entries, including through the denial or revocation of visas and other travel authorizations for individuals suspecting of participating in such efforts.

“Foreign nationals seeking temporary admission into the United States must adhere to the purposes for which the Congress has authorized their temporary admission, and cannot be permitted to circumvent the immigration laws in an attempt to vest themselves and their children with lasting benefits that are irreconcilable with their nonimmigrant status,” the order reads.

The order purporting to limit which children born in the U.S. are eligible for birthright citizenship describes “certain categories of children” who it says “do not fall within the rule of birthright citizenship as announced by the Supreme Court.”

It orders U.S. agencies not to provide citizenship documents to any child whose parents are not citizens if either of their parents is a foreign government employee, ambassador or a member of a foreign terrorist organization; was “engaged in a commercial transaction to purchase or access birthright citizenship” for them or to ensure their mother was in the U.S. when she gave birth to them; or had paid for a surrogate in the U.S. to give birth to them.

Echoing arguments made before the Supreme Court in defense of Trump’s first order purporting to end birthright citizenship, Trump and other White House officials claimed on Thursday that birthright citizenship was only ever intended for the children of slaves.

“This was done right after the Civil War. This was for the babies of slaves,” Trump said.

Others have said that argument “disregards the historical record” — which clearly shows lawmakers understood that the amendment’s language was much broader than that.

White House officials said the orders would prevent a large number of children from receiving birthright citizenship, hailing it as momentous.

“It ends what has been one of the gravest and most egregious abuses of the American system, and it keeps American citizenship safe,” said Stephen Miller, one of Trump’s top advisors on immigration.

Asked if the new orders would withstand judicial scrutiny, Trump predicted they would, before directing the question to White House staff secretary Will Scharf.

“What we’re doing is taking legally validated means that are clearly within our disposal and targeting them square on to this birth tourism industry,” Scharf said. “There’s absolutely nothing in here that runs afoul of any of the Supreme Court’s opinions on the subject.”

Vice President JD Vance also hailed the move.

“Our immigration system has been exploited by those who treat citizenship as a commercial transaction, not a sacred bond. President Trump is taking bold steps to combat birth tourism and restore our sovereignty. A serious nation owes its citizens nothing less,” he wrote on X.

In its 6-3 decision in June, the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s first order purporting to end birthright citizenship outright, finding that the 14th Amendment — with very few exceptions — provided a right to children born in the U.S. that could not be undone by the president.

“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote for the court. “The Framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Roberts in full, with Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh concurring with the outcome based on separate federal law. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.

The ruling was a major defeat for Trump, and was cheered by immigrant rights advocates, including many in California, as the final say on the matter — though Trump signaled almost immediately that the fight wasn’t over.

Mayor Karen Bass said Thursday that the LAPD should stop working with Flock Safety, warning that the company, which operates AI-enabled license plate readers that allow authorities to monitor vehicles around the city, had lost public trust.

In her most forceful comments to date on the topic, Bass said while she supports license plate reading technology generally as a tool for law enforcement, Flock had “lost the trust of Angelenos and residents across the country, especially in immigrant communities targeted by the federal administration.”

“There are many companies that provide this technology to cities nationwide,” Bass said in a statement. “The LAPD needs to identify another company that doesn’t share data.”

LAPD officials have said Flock’s technology enables investigators to solve crimes, helping to find vehicles that have been reported stolen or linked to suspects. Last month, the department announced it was pausing its relationship with Flock, but police officials later said they were in the process of negotiating a new deal with the company that would include more data sharing and collection safeguards.

Dozens of mostly smaller cities have deactivated their Flock cameras or ended their contracts with the company over concerns that it provides data to the Trump administration that can be used to track down immigrants for deportation.

Bass joined the chorus of activists and local officials calling for the LAPD to end its relationship with the company outright.

Her opponent in the November mayoral election, Nithya Raman, said last week on the social media platform X that the city should “cut ties with Flock Safety.”

“Cities across the country are canceling their Flock contracts over the risks its license plate readers pose to privacy, civil liberties, and immigrant communities,” Raman’s post read.

Last month, Bass signed an ordinance that prohibits city personnel from providing anyone outside local government access to data that can be used to determine someone’s immigration status.

A recent Washington Post report uncovered at least 50 instances nationwide in which law enforcement officials were accused of misusing their access to the cameras, largely to stalk former romantic partners or citizens.

A report issued last month by the LAPD inspector general’s office found numerous “limitations” in the department’s existing agreements with its three plate reader vendors — Flock, Axon and Motorola — including a lack of clear language about how long the data are retained and how they are shared with third parties or other law enforcement agencies.

The inspector general recommended that the department update its current license plate reader contracts to address data security and privacy concerns, conduct regular audits and develop standardized rules for traffic stops based on plate reader hits.

Flock has said its customers decide who can access data from their cameras. The company said it doesn’t have contracts with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, adding that has taken other steps to assuage public concern, such as barring federal agencies from its lookup tools and restricting immigration-related searches to ensure compliance with laws in California, Washington and other states.

In an interview with ABC7 last month, Flock CEO Garrett Langley said the company had to “tighten up the police and make sure everyone’s aligned and then turn it back on. He said the company retains the data from its plate readers for only 30 days and denied that its cameras employ facial recognition software as some of its critics have suggested.

During a virtual listening session hosted last week by the inspector general’s office, dozens of people sounded off on the department’s use of Flock cameras.

Some speakers, mostly from the fire-ravaged community of Pacific Palisades, supported the use of cameras to deter burglars who have repeatedly hit homes and construction sites in the area.

Jennifer Wolfe, who identified herself as a teacher in Altadena, another community devastated by the 2025 wildfires, urged Flock’s supporters to consider how “surveillance systems can grow far beyond their intended purpose.”

Locating stolen cars is important, she said, but people should be more concerned by this newfound and unchecked ability for the government to collect “vastly more information, with far less effort.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump is trying again to limit the number of people born in the country who can become American citizens, in a sign that even after his first attempt at limiting birthright citizenship was rejected by the Supreme Court, he’s ready to renew his efforts.

The president said he was signing two executive actions on immigration, including one limiting the number of people eligible for citizenship after being born in the United States. The written executive order released Thursday was narrower in scope than the previous one shot down by the Supreme Court and appeared to focus on restricting automatic citizenship to specific categories of people, including children born to adults with connections to foreign embassies or organizations as well as anyone considered an “alien enemy” of the United States.

It also aimed to restrict birthright citizenship to anyone whose parents “engaged in fraudulent activity to obtain citizenship.”

A second order seeks to curb what Trump called “birth tourism” by increasing restrictions on visitors to the U.S. who want to obtain visas to give birth while in the country.

Trump said he thought his latest actions would be constitutional.

“I thought we were going to win it at the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, we had a bad decision, very unfair decision. Our country suffers because of it and we’re ending it a different way,” Trump said.

In June, the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s previous efforts to declare that children born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily aren’t American citizens, and upheld a broad conception of birthright citizenship.

On the first day of Trump’s second term, he signed an executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, which allows anyone born in the United States to automatically become an American citizen.

Trump’s administration immediately was sued by opponents who said the executive order went against the 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, which makes anyone born in the country a citizen, with very limited exceptions.

The executive order was blocked by several lower courts and never took effect.

In June, the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s order by a 6-3 vote. But the vote was too close for many immigration advocates and legal observers who felt the legal question of birthright citizenship was a long-settled issue.

Weissert and Santana write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s choice for attorney general is facing a tight vote for confirmation in a Republican-controlled Senate nearly halfway through his second term, reflecting mounting doubts about his leadership of the Justice Department as bipartisan concerns over the weaponization of justice intensify.

The confirmation of Todd Blanche hangs on the support of two Republicans who have repeatedly criticized Trump’s stewardship of the department, where Blanche has served as deputy and acting attorney general, roles he assumed after working as the president’s personal lawyer for nearly two years.

Republican senators resisted Trump’s approach to the Justice Department from the start of the presidential transition, rejecting his first choice to lead it, Matt Gaetz, amid concerns he would use the department to pursue political retribution. But after Gaetz withdrew, Trump’s replacement, Pam Bondi, won bipartisan confirmation with the support of the entire Republican caucus.

Blanche is already guaranteed a narrower margin, with Sen. Susan Collins of Maine announcing she will vote to reject his confirmation, and with Sen. Mitch McConnell absent for health reasons. Democrats are expected to be united in opposition against him.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, a figure the president has referred to as a “terrible,” “Trump-deranged” “loser” who “should never be elected,” has refused to comment on her plans.

Her staff has said she is reviewing a commitment Blanche made in writing to formally rescind a controversial, $1.8-billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” announced in May to compensate Trump’s political allies, including those who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Blanche also said he would limit immunity offered to Trump and his family for future tax audits, although his wording left the door open to negotiating a future deal along similar terms.

“I think certainly the fact that he has signed this order, basically disbanding [the Anti-Weaponization Fund] — that’s a pretty good step,” Murkowski said , adding that she would “like to find out a little bit more about the negotiations.”

Blanche has taken steps to curry Murkowski’s favor in recent months, visiting Alaska and announcing a $400-million settlement benefiting Alaska natives’ healthcare in July.

Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, the other uncommitted lawmaker in the chamber, said he had concerns that Blanche was still effectively working as Trump’s personal attorney under the guise of public service.

“I am very concerned about so-called lawfare — people being prosecuted not for a valid reason beyond somebody in high office being angry at them,” Cassidy said.

“So, I’ve not made a decision regarding Mr. Blanche,” he added. “I’ve got to be convinced that he is an attorney general who just happens to have once been President Trump’s personal attorney, as opposed to President Trump’s personal attorney who is now the attorney general. I think there’s a big difference between the two.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota said that he was still working to secure the votes needed for Blanche’s confirmation.

“I’m hoping we’ll get there eventually,” he told reporters on Wednesday.

Blanche became the acting attorney general in April after Bondi was fired. Blanche had previously served as deputy attorney general and has been linked to some of the most controversial policies of the Trump administration.

His connection to the settlement between Trump and the Internal Revenue Service took center stage during his confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Blanche said during the hearing that the controversial fund created as part of the IRS settlement was dead.

But Republican Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina refused to vote for Blanche until he issued a more explicit order that killed the fund, which was designed to provide payouts to allies of Trump.

Cornyn and Tillis also demanded that the Justice Department provide constraints to tax audit immunity that was granted to Trump, two of his sons and their business as part of the lawsuit settlement.

The federal judge who presided over the IRS case blasted the proceedings and the agreement as “improper” saying that the two sides — Trump and the IRS — were not truly independent of each other.

The written assurances provided by Blanche were enough to win support from Cornyn and Tillis, though Democrats pointed out that they did not foreclose the possibility that a similar fund could be resurrected in the future.

“The president himself has largely telegraphed that’s his plan,” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the top Democrat on the committee, said Tuesday before the vote.

Blanche has been the face of the administration’s release of files related to deceased sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein. Bondi told the House Oversight Committee in May that Blanche had overseen the process, which included delays in the release of files and major redaction issues.

Blanche also faced criticism for a July 2025 prison interview he conducted with Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted of facilitating Epstein’s abuse.

Shortly after the interview, she was moved from her Florida prison to a low-security prison in Texas where she has reportedly gotten favorable treatment.

The day after the state’s Senate primary, I was at a gym in Michigan when I overheard a brief exchange about the results of the close race.

The small group of voters were all elderly and white. Most of them expressed disappointment that Democratic Rep. Haley Stevens lost. Most of them questioned victor Abdul El-Sayed’s ability to win in November against a Republican. One of them called El-Sayed — a born and raised Michigander who attended the University of Michigan and ran the Department of Health, Human and Veteran Services for the largest county in the state — “a radical.”

For a few seconds, the group went quiet.

The only sound heard was the echo from the dog whistle that was just blown.

The prejudicial rot at the heart of that comment is just one of the challenges facing El-Sayed in November, however it is the most significant.

MAGA Republicans may complain about identity politics, but they aren’t afraid to use them. During the primary campaign, both Republican gubernatorial candidates in the state continuously ran ads characterizing immigrants as violent criminals. That will likely continue. El-Sayed’s opponent, Mike Rogers, is endorsed by President Trump, who has been making racially offensive statements for more than half a century.

That’s documented as far back as the 1973 lawsuit the Nixon administration filed against him and his family for racial discrimination, and it’s documented as recently as the octogenarian’s latest social posts about people from Somalia and Haiti. Not to be outdone by his boss, Vice President JD Vance started his fearmongering during a supposed anti-fraud event this week. The 2028 presidential hopeful quipped “God forbid, you’re going to have President El-Sayed in three years” — a thought I had not considered until he said it.

Many of us hadn’t given El-Sayed much consideration at all until recent months. When Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) announced he was not seeking reelection in January 2025, El-Sayed was not considered a strong contender to replace him. Many establishment Democrats believed former U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who quietly moved to Michigan after running for the White House in 2020, or Stevens, were the party’s best shot of holding on to the seat and helping Michigan do its part to flip the Senate.

They discounted El-Sayed’s chances in large part because they misread the moment we are in. The days of performative campaign endorsements, huge war chests and strongly worded posts started fading noticeably in 2016 — after Jeb Bush dropped out of the race early despite having north of $100 million at his disposal. Yet over the last decade, establishment Democrats have continued to replay the same playbook with mixed results. And in totality, Tuesday’s primaries in Michigan, Kansas, Missouri, Virginia and Washington are a mixed bag with no clear message beyond whatever you read into these facts: El-Sayed is a Muslim who has criticized the government of Israel, and yet he won a Democratic primary. Even so, the chatter before and after the vote is more revealing than the primary outcome. (On Tuesday, roughly 2 out of 10 eligible voters in the state cast a ballot in Michigan. Sweeping interpretations of El-Sayed’s narrow victory are rather bold when 80% of voters didn’t participate.)

Questions about his electability have little to do with his résumé — the Rhodes scholar led Columbia University’s research on global population health — and more to do with him being the son of Egyptian immigrants who prays five times a day. The president takes photos holding an upside-down Bible and has a 22-foot gold statue of himself, but it is El-Sayed’s faith that should worry good Christian folks?

Over the weeks leading to Tuesday, we saw entire interviews with El-Sayed — an epidemiologist — that dwelled solely on his thoughts about Israel, while voters in his state were dealing with a cyclosporiasis outbreak. He has plenty to say on other topics. Getting “money out of politics” is not only central to his campaign messaging, but also is an actual grassroots ballot initiative in Michigan. Yet the talk about El-Sayed mostly orbits around one foreign policy topic.

To be clear: The issue for establishment Democrats isn’t that something like “Medicare for all” is too radical of an idea to champion. Both President Obama and President Clinton campaigned heavily on healthcare, and history views them both as centrist. No, the concern is how easy it is for Trump, Rogers and other Republicans to “other” El-Sayed, so when he does question our spending priorities it can be painted as un-American or antisemitic. As a result, election analysis is indirectly being dictated by his identity, all but ignoring he’s one of the top healthcare experts in a state still reeling from a foodborne illness.

What El-Sayed and his supporters are questioning isn’t Israel’s right to exist. They’re wondering why the United States, the richest of all the developed democracies, is still the only one that does not guarantee healthcare to its citizens? The list of nations that do guarantee access includes Israel, which receives billions in U.S. aid. For a doctor who has written a book on healthcare access and co-authored about 100 scholarly articles on health, that line of questioning doesn’t seem radical at all.

It is who is doing the asking that unnerves some.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Warner Bros. Discovery stumbled in the second quarter, demonstrating the hazard of depending heavily on blockbuster returns from its Burbank film studio.

Disappointing performances by “Supergirl” and “The Bride,” drove down quarterly theatrical revenue by 46%. The tepid showing illustrated how the Warner Bros. studio has fallen since last year when it was riding high at the box office with “Sinners,” and “A Minecraft Movie.”

Warner’s lackluster earnings, released Thursday, comes as tech scion David Ellison’s Paramount Skydance remains eager to complete its $111-billion deal to buy Warner Bros. Discovery to combine streaming operations and the storied film studio with Melrose Avenue’s Paramount Pictures.

Overall, profit for Warner Bros. Discovery, which also is the parent of HBO, CNN, TLC and HGTV, plummeted 91% to $149 million, or 6 cents per share, compared to $1.6 billion in the second quarter of 2025 amid the film studio’s blazing run.

The company also fell short of Wall Street expectations for revenue, which sank 11% to $8.7 billion, despite noteworthy gains in its HBO Max streaming business.

Warner missed having NBA games on its TNT channel, which contributed to a 27% drop in advertising to $1.4 billion. The NBA’s departure, and the absence of the NHL Stanley Cup finals, contributed to a 17% ratings decline at Warner’s cable networks.

Chief Executive David Zaslav opted not to renew the pricey basketball contract as Warner has been straining to pay down debt brought on by its last merger in 2022. Instead, NBCUniversal picked up the NBA arrangement.

Warner executives disclosed the company still is carrying about $30 billion in debt.

The company’s earnings revealed continued weakness in the cable television division amid consumer cord-cutting, which has slowed down in recent quarters.

Still, the channels remain a significant part of Warner’s overall revenue and profit picture.

Revenue to the global linear networks, which includes TNT, Discovery and international channels, declined 17% to $4 billion. Adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization in that division fell 4% to $1.4 billion.

Despite the gloomy results, Warner’s stock climbed more than 1% in early Thursday trading to $26.25. Investors seemed heartened by news that British authorities have cleared Ellison’s proposed takeover.

Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority found the Paramount-Warner combination would not restrict media competition in Britain.

Warner investors are expecting more than $31 a share should Paramount succeed in its proposed Warner Bros. purchase. The blockbuster acquisition has stalled amid an antitrust challenge filed last month by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and 11 other state attorneys.

Bonta’s coalition, including prosecutors from New York, Colorado, Minnesota and Nevada, contends the deal violates U.S. antitrust law.

“We’re confident this transaction will close,” Zaslav told analysts on an early morning conference call.

Earlier this week, a federal judge scheduled a March 2, 2027 trial — months later than Paramount had hoped — to determine whether the deal should move forward.

Paramount faces a June 4 deadline to wrap up the purchase — or pay a $7 billion breakup fee to Warner.

Warner’s earnings bright spot came from its streaming segment, which includes HBO.

Streaming revenue grew 10% to $3 billion as the company continued its international rollout of HBO Max. The service benefits from Warner films, cartoons and HBO’s critically acclaimed original content including “Euphoria,” “Hacks,” “The Gilded Age” and “A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms,” which debuted earlier this year.

Adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization in the streaming division soared 75% to $512 million.

Streaming chief JB Perrette said his division was bullish about next year when HBO will introduce new seasons of “The White Lotus,” “The Last of Us” and “The Pitt.”

Warner executives acknowledged their film studio’s struggles. The company does not break out theatrical revenue figures, but said total revenue for the film and television studios declined 39% to $2.3 billion.

The studios’ adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization dropped 89% to $96 million.

Zaslav conceded Warner Bros. would release fewer films this year than it had initially anticipated because some weren’t ready for audiences. The studio should release 14 movies this year but plans to boost its output to 19 next year.

“We’re very confident that we’re going to be able to maintain that larger number,” Chief Financial Officer Gunnar Wiedenfels said on the call.

The studio will rebound, Zaslav said.

“Next year, we’re going to have ‘Lord of the Rings,’ ‘Batman,’ ‘Superman,’ [and] ‘Minecraft’ too,” Zaslav said. “Our overall philosophy [is] making sure that we bring the motion picture to the market when the film is ready.”

Ellison, in his bid for Warner Bros., has promised regulators that the combined studio would release 30 films a year — an amount that some experts believe is overly ambitious.

Late Wednesday, Regal Global Entertainment Chief Executive Eduardo Acuna cited Ellison’s commitment to a strong pipeline in announcing his theater chain’s support for the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger.

“We need a thriving studio system to ensure that the industry has a platform from which to grow,” Acuna said in a statement. “I believe David is sincere in making these commitments, and he has offered to execute a consent decree to the State AGs. These are tangible and important commitments that will benefit the industry.”

Staff writer Samantha Masunaga contributed to this report.

British regulators on Thursday cleared tech scion David Ellison’s $111-billion deal to buy Warner Bros. Discovery — the latest international agency to find the blockbuster combination of TV channels and historic film studios wouldn’t dampen competition.

Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority and the government’s culture minister separately reviewed Paramount Skydance’s proposed Warner acquisition, which is facing significant turbulence in the U.S. as California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta leads a coalition of state attorneys general who are battling to try to unravel the mammoth deal.

“The evidence shows that, after the merger, Paramount will continue to face sufficient competition in the various areas it operates in, including the production and distribution of films and TV content, the supply of children’s channels to pay-TV providers and the supply of streaming services,” the authority said in a statement.

Earlier this summer, Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Lisa Nandy said she was weighing whether to intervene by launching an in-depth investigation into potential harms that could result from the proposed Paramount-Warner Bros. combination.

Nandy opted not to issue an “intervention notice” after striking an agreement with Paramount that provides “assurances and legally-binding commitments” that the company would not abuse its market clout.

The authority’s approval was significant because Paramount owns CBS News, children’s channel Nickelodeon and Channel 5, one of the largest over-the-air television broadcasters in the United Kingdom.

Warner Bros. Discovery owns HBO, CNN, Cartoon Network and TNT Sports, which broadcasts the Olympics, Champions League and Premier League soccer matches.

Ellison and his team now have won clearances from 66 antitrust regulators, including the U.S. Department of Justice, and regulators in Australia, Germany, France, Italy, China and Canada, among others. The European Commission also approved the deal last month.

“These clearances recognize that the combination of Paramount and WBD will enhance consumer choice and enable a creative-first company to invest in more projects and bring stories to audiences worldwide,” Paramount said in a statement.

Still, the deal is stalled in the U.S.

Bonta and his fellow Democrat state attorneys general have won early victories in their court battle, and a federal judge this week scheduled a March trial — months later than Paramount had hoped — to determine whether the merger would violate the century-old U.S. Clayton Antitrust Act.

Paramount is facing a June 4 deadline to finalize the deal or pay Warner a $7-billion break-up fee.

Bonta and the 11 other state attorneys general, including from New York, Colorado and Oregon, have alleged the merger of two major film studios would give Paramount-Warner Bros. more than 25% of the wide-release theatrical film market. Their lawsuit contends the combined company would own too many cable TV channels — more than 50, including CNN, TBS, HGTV and Comedy Central.

The Writers Guild of America has separately sued to block the transaction, claiming the combination of two historic studios would reduce opportunities and pay for writers.

Ellison, in a guest essay this week, blamed politics for the U.S. friction. “The issue is whether I can be trusted as a steward of Warner’s CNN,” Ellison wrote in his op-ed in the New York Times.

Bonta, in a recent interview with The Times, denied his lawsuit was motivated by politics, saying it was a “meat-and-potatoes” antitrust case.

More than 5,000 entertainment industry workers, including such high-profile stars as Jane Fonda, Ben Stiller, Bryan Cranston and Mark Ruffalo, signed an open letter early this year, calling on Bonta to thwart the merger. The group alleged the transaction would weaken Hollywood with “fewer opportunities for creators, fewer jobs across the production ecosystem, higher costs, and less choice for audiences.”

Britain’s competition authority found the combined company would still encounter competition from Universal Pictures, Disney and Sony Pictures Entertainment and “a range of other smaller studios.”

In addition, the CMA factored in the competition brought by streaming services to traditional forms of movie and TV distribution — one of Paramount’s key arguments.

“Paramount is grateful to the CMA for its constructive engagement and its review of the transaction,” Paramount said in its statement. “These conclusions further demonstrate the misguided and gerrymandered market definitions relied upon by the US state AGs in their antitrust complaint in California.”

Eighty-three lawsuits filed against the Trump administration in 18 months, at a cost of more than $20 million.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced those stats this week, part of an annual report to the Legislature on how we’re spending a special fund set aside to combat President Trump’s overreach.

That doesn’t include more than 120 friend of the court briefs the Golden State has written in legal matters brought by others, or the multitude of cases in which the Trump administration has sued California and Bonta’s office is defending us.

That’s a whole lot of litigation. Is it worth it? Are we huffing and puffing for political points, or do all these lawsuits actually do something positive for the average Californian?

You get what you pay for

I’m going to sound like a bus bench ad for the legal profession, but, at this point, “the courts are standing as the only barrier to the president doing anything that the president wants to do,” Hiroshi Motomura, a professor of law at UCLA, told me.

And what the president apparently wants to do is make the poor and vulnerable poorer and more vulnerable. And don’t think there’s a middle-class exemption. In his second term, Trump has attacked healthcare coverage, special education, education in general, reproductive rights, gender rights, the environment, endangered species, immigrants and more.

“The disastrous impact of Trump’s lawlessness isn’t theoretical or hypothetical. It’s not imagined. It is real. It is hurting real people,” Bonta said. “It is hurting Californians, real families, real businesses, real communities every single day.”

You name it, if it’s not rich and connected, it’s probably under attack. President Lyndon B. Johnson launched a very different war on poverty in 1964 with social programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Head Start. This new war on poverty seems intent on increasing it, not eradicating it.

It would be nearly impossible for the people affected by these attacks on government services to fight them on their own, said Richard Abel, a professor emeritus of law at UCLA and the author of multiple books on the Trump presidency.

“They don’t know why it’s happening,” he said. “They don’t have access to lawyers. Many of them are undocumented or afraid to mobilize the legal system.”

That leaves the states, which are often the only other entities that have a legal right to sue, because they too are being harmed by the cuts.

So yeah, our $20 million is well spent. Bonta said his legal work has protected about $207 billion in funding. But I’ll argue the true return on investment is California residents who have been protected in ways they don’t even realize.

Risks we don’t even realize

Take Massachusetts vs. Department of Agriculture, one of the cases California is involved in. This is Trump’s attempt to put new rules on USDA grants for food programs including emergency food assistance, school lunches and food stamps. It would tie compliance with his right-wing, discriminatory policies on immigration, gender ideology and diversity issues to receiving those funds.

California and other states sued and won a preliminary injunction stopping them in June — meaning most recipients kept their benefits without ever realizing they were at risk.

Then there’s New York vs. Administration for Children & Families, in which Trump goes after child welfare funds; Washington vs. Department of Education, which attacks mental health grants that help hire school psychologists and counselors; and Illinois vs. Vought, which targets California and three other states run by Democrats for cuts to transportation and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funding for no other reason than politics, the states argue.

Food benefits, access to mental health care, lead poisoning prevention. Just a few more things most of us didn’t realize could be at risk for some of us.

In each of those cases, Bonta and the other Democratic attorneys general stopped the federal actions, even if only temporarily. Some of those cases are ongoing, but with restraining orders or injunctions in place.

Then there’s United States vs. Baass, Trump’s attempt to force Michelle Baass, the director of the California Department of Health Care Services, to turn over a bunch of applications for Medi-Cal benefits for the last five years so the federal government can go on a witch hunt for undocumented folks.

Supposedly these applications, which Baass and her agency were subpoenaed for, are needed for an immigration investigation in the Central Valley. California won in court in March, when a judge denied the federal government’s petition to enforce that subpoena.

Now, the feds are appealing to the 9th Circuit — and California continues to fight to protect the privacy and maybe even safety of the residents who just needed medical care, but could see their sensitive information, including addresses, turned over to immigration authorities if Trump had his way.

How could they possibly fight that on their own?

Then there’s a lawsuit in which Trump is trying to prevent California from continuing to give in-state tuition to Dreamers — undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as youngsters.

In battles such as that one, fought because it’s the right thing to do, Motomura sees a benefit greater than just protecting funding.

It forces us to push back against the federal government’s framing that immigration is “about invaders, you know, climbing walls,” Motomura said.

“This is about people who live in our communities,” he said. “And I think that when Bonta claims that space, he’s not just pushing back. He’s saying, ‘Let’s think about this in terms of building stronger communities,’ and I think that’s a significant shift.”

The rule of law may be battered and bruised, and even at times a bit hinky. But so far, it has held — in no small part because of Democratic attorneys general like Bonta who aren’t just filing lawsuits but have built the staffs and networks to do it effectively. It’s a much larger effort than we give it credit for, but one that has fundamentally protected our everyday lives so well that many have barely noticed the wolves at the door.

I’m sure there will be losses, wolves that crawl through windows, and we will all feel the bite of that. But 83 lawsuits will soon likely be 84, 94, whatever it takes to protect Californians.

Each one is a fight worth having, because every Californian is worth fighting for.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: From decorated U.S. Marine to arrested at Trump golf course: What we know about Jeanine John Taele
The deep dive: The obscure financial maneuver at issue in Dodgers owner probe explained
The L.A. Times Special: New park under neglected 6th Street Bridge stirs up hope, Boyle Heights gentrification fears

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

WASHINGTON — The Department of Homeland Security’s system for paying for detainee medical care has collapsed, records show, leaving a backlog of unpaid claims likely costing millions of dollars.

With a new payment system still not in place, advocates for immigrant detainees fear some are going without necessary treatment as medical providers near a year without compensation.

Newly released federal records reveal what that treatment could be for, detailing more than 233,000 claims for off-site medical and dental care between January and early October of 2025. The claims, for which Homeland Security spent $96 million, show detainees were treated for a wide variety of conditions, including strokes, pregnancy, suicide attempts and frostbite.

For years, Homeland Security relied on a unit of the Department of Veterans Affairs, its financial services center, to process reimbursement claims for detainee medical care. But since that arrangement abruptly ended Oct. 3, the company hired to create a new payment processing system has yet to start reimbursing the medical clinics, dental practices and pharmacies that treat detained patients.

The documents were released by the VA to the nonprofit watchdog group American Oversight through the Freedom of Information Act and shared exclusively with The Times. They paint the clearest picture yet of the off-site medical care received by immigrants in the custody of the federal government before the payment system fractured.

The old system used by Homeland Security was scrapped after critics questioned why the VA was processing paperwork for a different federal department.

During the Biden administration, Republicans claimed that the contract between Homeland Security and the VA took resources from veterans to facilitate healthcare for immigrants and introduced a bill to stop it.

Last year, with President Trump back in office, the VA wrote Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Aug. 19 to say that it would stop processing detainee medical claims by Feb. 28, 2026.

“This termination is necessary to reallocate resources to support mission-facing programs,” the letter states.

On Sept. 30, the right-wing Center to Advance Security in America filed a lawsuit against the VA seeking answers to a year-old request for records related to the alleged diversion of resources. The VA didn’t respond to requests for comment. But then-VA press secretary Pete Kasperowicz told the Daily Signal that the department had, under President Biden, focused on unnecessary activities such as processing healthcare claims for immigrants.

“Under President Trump, the department has abandoned these radical liberal priorities and rededicated itself to providing the best possible care and benefits to the Veterans, families, caregivers and survivors we serve,” he said.

Three days after the lawsuit was filed, the VA stopped processing Homeland Security claims. Later that month, ICE awarded multimillion dollar no-bid contracts to two companies tasked with taking over claims processing: Acentra Health for healthcare services and Ardent Group for pharmacy services.

Federal law requires Homeland Security to provide medical care to the people in its custody. Those held by Customs and Border Protection near the border, or by ICE in the country’s interior, are civilly detained for the purpose of removal proceedings. ICE is holding more than 65,000 detainees as the agency touts record-high arrests this summer.

ICE and Customs and Border Protection rely on about 3,000 community-based providers and local hospitals, which submit about 300,000 claims annually for detainee care, according to ICE.

The claims outlined in the VA documents show ICE paid $77.3 million, 80% of the total, and CBP paid $19 million. Together, the agencies paid on average about $260 for off-site care per detainee from January to October 2025, a Times analysis found. By comparison, federal prisons in fiscal year 2025 spent about $2,700 per inmate on external medical care.

For ICE, medical conditions that had the highest number of claims included screenings for tuberculosis and other diseases and treatment for hypertension, chest pain and type 2 diabetes. Some of the highest-paid amounts related to treatment of psychosis, schizophrenia and sepsis.

More than a third of the claims for CBP — and more than half of the total paid amount — went to a category of claims called “injury, poisoning and certain consequences of external causes.” That includes traumatic injuries such as fractures, concussions and hemorrhages.

Among other notable claims are 2,267 for pregnancy, birth and maternal care, 1,793 for seizures and 419 for suicide or self-harm. The most expensive claim was $292,199 for treatment of leukemia.

Homeland Security did not return requests for comment but frequently says it provides comprehensive medical, dental and mental health care, which officials tout as the best healthcare many detainees ever received.

Dr. Amy Zeidan, an emergency medicine doctor and associate professor at Emory University who studies immigrant detainee health outcomes, said the VA data show detained immigrants require significant medical care. She said some of those entering detention facilities likely have chronic conditions and don’t get proper care, while others likely develop serious conditions while detained.

“There is a high burden of disease in detention facilities that we have always suspected but really had no evidence to support,” she said. “It’s not like these are people getting routine visits for mildly high blood pressure — these are people who require hospitalizations.”

“If claims are no longer being paid, this is a big problem because outside care is certainly needed,” she added.

The decision to end the processing agreement with the VA “created an emergency,” according to ICE officials. That phrase appears in a contracting document for Acentra Health that was first reported on by independent journalists through the newsletter Popular Information.

Several vendors expressed interest in the job, but ICE said a formal competition would take months and the lack of a way to process claims could delay necessary medical care, such as dialysis, prenatal care and chemotherapy.

ICE needed to come up with a new way to process medical claims “instantly” in order to “prevent any further medical complications or loss of life,” the contracting document states. “Off-site providers who are not paid timely may not accept new patients or continue to provide vital care and services.”

The ICE officials wrote that Acentra Health provides the same claims processing system used by the VA and would be able to restore claims processing services quickly.

Claims processing was slated to resume April 30, but providers still haven’t been paid.

The ICE Health Service Corps website says providers should “hold all claim submissions while we work to bring the new system online.”

Lindsey Rodarmer, public relations manager for Acentra Health, said the company’s role under its contract is solely to build out the claims processing system — not to start processing claims.

“The timeline for the completion of this project depends on factors beyond any single party, including two government shutdowns, funding lapses, and the timing of federal authorizations, all of which have impacted the project schedule,” Rodarmer said.

According to a federal contracting website, Acentra has been paid $44.6 million of its $67.5-million contract, which Rodarmer said was extended until Sept. 24. Ardent Group has been paid $26.7 million of its $42.6-million contract, which is slated to end Oct. 24.

In June, Homeland Security posted a request for information to identify other potential vendors. The agency wants companies to answer 29 questions. The first asks for a “realistic timeline” on when the processing of claims can begin.

Rodarmer said Acentra responded to the request for information and, if chosen, would begin paying out claims under the system it built.

Last month, Reps. Mark Takano (D-Riverside) and Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) wrote to the leaders of the VA and Homeland Security seeking answers about when Acentra will begin processing reimbursements, whether any claims have been paid since Oct. 3, and how many detainees have had health complications or died because they were unable to access off-site healthcare. The lawmakers said the agencies haven’t responded.

In an interview, Ramirez said she believes the lack of payment for medical claims is directly tied to an increase in detainee deaths. At least 23 people have died in immigration custody this year. Last year the agency reported 33 in-custody deaths.

She said that without answers to the questions she raised with Takano, there’s no way to know what Homeland Security has been billing for and how much care has been put on hold.

“In our current system, if no one is paying for services, no one gets healthcare,” Ramirez said. “Since DHS and VA stopped processing medical claims nine months ago, it is clear that our neighbors are being deprived of necessary medical care in violation of the law.”

Meanwhile, detained immigrants and their supporters have raised increasing alarms over medical care provided by ICE.

ICE said Edwin Jovanny Lopez Cornejo, 41, of El Salvador suffered a medical emergency on Saturday and was pronounced dead after being taken to a New Jersey hospital.

The agency said Lopez Cornejo had received proper medical care and was seen by medical professionals. His mother, however, told a local immigrant rights group that she believed he hadn’t received his medication for diabetes, high blood pressure and seizures.

In California, a court-appointed medical monitor issued a report last month finding that the state’s largest immigrant detention center repeatedly has delayed assessments, treatment and administration of medication for detainees. The center’s operator told The Times it was reviewing the report and that nothing matters more than the health, safety and well-being of people under its care.

At the California City Detention Facility, one man waited months for a surgery he never received. The 34-year-old man asked to be identified by his initials, A.S., over concerns about his immigration case.

A.S. said he tripped and broke an ankle while detained in late February. He was transported to a local hospital and placed in a cast.

Medical records show A.S. didn’t see a specialist until April 10, when it was determined he needed surgery. At an appointment June 1, A.S. said a doctor told him he had missed a scheduled operation, which medical records appear to confirm.

He said the doctor told him too much time had passed and the surgery no longer was possible because of risk of complications. The doctor ordered physical therapy, A.S. said, but medical records show he didn’t receive any.

A.S. was released from the detention center last month still limping and in pain. Unable to find work or pay to see a doctor, he has resorted to recycling cans and bottles to support himself.

“They knew about my situation — there were requests asking to be seen, there were complaints I had filed, so it’s not like they didn’t know,” A.S. said. “Instead, it’s as if they didn’t want to give me the medical attention.”

WASHINGTON — The narrow victory of progressive doctor Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan’s bitterly fought Democratic Senate primary sets up a defining test of the party’s progressive wing in one of the highest-stakes U.S. Senate contests of the midterms.

Whether El-Sayed, a former public health official, can carry swing voters in a battleground state could both determine the outcome of a Senate seat viewed as crucial to determining control of Congress and have broader ramifications on the Democratic Party’s struggle for its identity.

El-Sayed, a 41-year-old epidemiologist, defeated U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens, a moderate Democrat, by a narrow margin Wednesday after a long and intense campaign that was seen as a proxy for the party’s fissures.

The race was far closer than some polls had indicated. El-Sayed was leading Stevens by 15,000 votes, about 1 percentage point, with 99% of votes counted Wednesday, according to the Associated Press.

El-Sayed will face former Rep. Mike Rogers, a Republican, in the general election. The winner will succeed retiring Democratic Sen. Gary Peters, whose seat Democrats see as critical to retain for the party to have a chance at flipping the Senate.

“We’ve got an opportunity to bring ourselves back together, to come together around a movement, to take our democracy back,” El-Sayed said Wednesday on MS NOW’s “Morning Joe.”

El-Sayed’s victory will put to the test in a swing state the broader strength of the progressive movement, which has found success in deep-blue places like New York City, where Zohran Mamdani was elected mayor last year, and Los Angeles, where City Councilmember Nithya Raman is locked in a tight race mayoral contest with incumbent Karen Bass. Both Mamdani and Raman are democratic socialists.

As Democrats struggle over the party’s post-2024 identity and grapple with how to win back voters, the divide between the party’s progressive and centrist wings has been on display in primary fights. Both camps have notched victories: Many of the leftist wins have come in intensely blue districts, such as in New York, while more moderate districts have chosen centrists, as in Iowa.

On Tuesday, two progressive congressional candidates in Michigan beat out establishment Democrats in House races — in one case, ousting an incumbent. But in Missouri, democratic socialist and former Rep. Cori Bush lost to incumbent Rep. Wesley Bell, a moderate, for a key House seat.

In California, a handful of progressive candidates are on the November ballot, including the challengers to Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Sacramento) and Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford). In the Aug. 18 runoff to fill the vacant seat of former Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, progressive state Sen. Aisha Wahab is battling it out with fellow Democrat and BART board president Melissa Hernandez.

Progressive leaders celebrated El-Sayed’s win on Wednesday. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who backed El-Sayed, argue that his working-class-centered politics are more likely to have mass appeal.

“If you’re a working-class Republican in Michigan, I think you’re going to listen to what El-Sayed says,” Sanders told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday. “I think many of them will end up voting for him, independents as well, of course.”

Throughout the campaign, Stevens argued that El-Sayed would not be able to defeat Rogers, a refrain some moderates repeated Wednesday. El-Sayed vowed to unite Democrats around defeating Rogers, who previously served seven terms in Congress, saying that he and Stevens would be focused on “bringing the party back together.”

Rogers on Wednesday portrayed El-Sayed as an “extremist,” saying in a statement that the election is “about deciding whether Michigan has a future built on common sense — or whether we hand the keys to the most fringe extremists in the nation.”

El-Sayed, a former city and county health official, focused on opposing money in politics and pushing for Medicare for All, among other issues. His opposition to Israel’s war in Gaza and Stevens’ support for Israel became a major issue in the campaign. AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying group, spent millions in support of Stevens.

Early in the primary race, El-Sayed sought to temper some of the concerns around his progressive agenda by presenting himself as a Michigan-first, working-class-focused candidate, said John Barry Ryan, a University of Michigan professor of political science.

But as excitement over his campaign began to mount among progressives on a national level, Ryan said, El-Sayed’s public posture swung to a middle ground.

“The signal he’s trying to send is, I’m not a moderate, but I’m also not an extremist,” Ryan said.

Whether El-Sayed can effectively sell his message to undecided voters against Rogers now becomes a key question of the general election, said Corwin Smidt, a politics professor at Michigan State University.

“[Rogers] has experience. He has credentials,” Smidt said. “El-Sayed doesn’t have that. But I do think he’s got the skill and the right language to get him over.”

At least two key Michigan Democrats signaled a desire to move past the primary’s fights. Late Tuesday, Mallory McMorrow, a Michigan state senator who launched her own bid for the seat but suspended her campaign in early July, released an endorsement of El-Sayed.

“Whatever differences there were between the candidates in this race, those differences are nothing compared to the contrast in November,” McMorrow wrote on X. “The only way we get there is together.”

After conceding, Stevens sent a similar signal in a statement:

“We need to win this Senate race,” she said.

WASHINGTON — Midterm battle lines have been drawn across the Western states, as attention turns to general election campaigning with three months until November’s election day.

Washington state completed its primary Tuesday, the last mainland state west of the Rocky Mountains to do so. A national spotlight is on the state’s 3rd District, just over the border from Portland, Ore., where Democratic Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez is now set to face state Senate Minority Leader John Braun, a Republican.

Democrats see defending that vulnerable seat as key to the party’s attempt to win a House majority. It is one of a handful of competitive races across the West that will help decide which party controls the House during the second half of President Trump’s term.

Attention and money is set to pour into those races over the coming months, along with some key statewide races. Here are ones to watch in California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Nevada and beyond.

Washington’s big race

Washington’s battleground 3rd District is a high priority for both parties. The district went for President Trump in 2024 while reelecting Gluesenkamp Perez.

Gluesenkamp Perez, a centrist who was first elected narrowly in 2022 and has made a name for herself by sometimes breaking with her party, successfully fended off primary challengers on Tuesday to advance to the November ballot. Braun, a retired Navy captain, won the other spot on the ballot.

The race with Braun will test Gluesenkamp Perez against a more moderate opponent than she had in conservative former CIA officer Joe Kent, who ran against her in both her previous elections. It will also test loyalty from her progressive base, some members of which were unhappy after Gluesenkamp Perez voted to fund the Department of Homeland Security in January, one of seven Democrats who helped it pass.

A competitive primary also unfolded Tuesday in the conservative central Washington district held by longtime Rep. Dan Newhouse, who is retiring. Republican Amanda McKinney, a county commissioner who was endorsed by Trump, and Democrat John Duresky, a retired Air Force major, advanced to the general election.

Newhouse was one of the last two House Republicans remaining in Congress who voted to impeach Trump following the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford), who is seeking reelection in what is shaping up to be California’s most competitive House race, is the other.

The West’s other battlegrounds

The Western states hold four of the nation’s 18 toss-up races as rated by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

Two are for Republican-held seats in Arizona, both in districts that Trump carried narrowly in 2024, and both top targets of Democrats.

In an open Phoenix-area district, Democrat Amish Shah, a physician and former state lawmaker, faces Republican Jay Feely, a Trump-endorsed former NFL player.

In a suburban Tucson district, Republican Rep. Juan Ciscomani is seeking reelection, challenged by Democrat JoAnna Mendoza, a former Marine.

California has one toss-up race: in the 22nd District, where Valadao hopes to fend off Democratic newcomer Randy Villegas for his Central Valley swing seat.

The region’s fourth toss-up is Colorado’s 8th District, which extends north from the Denver suburbs and has the largest Latino population of the state’s congressional districts. Republican Rep. Gabe Evans is defending his seat against Democrat Manny Rutinel, a state lawmaker.

In Nevada, Republicans are seeking to flip a southern Clark County district that covers part of Las Vegas. Democratic Rep. Susie Lee, who won reelection in 2024 as Trump carried the district, faces Republican Marty O’Donnell, who won Trump’s backing.

The race is rated as competitive by Cook, with a “lean Democratic” rating that very slightly favors Lee; Republicans hope strong turnout in support of Nevada GOP Gov. Joe Lombardo, who is up for reelection, could help them carry the district, Cook noted.

In California, two lean-Democratic seats are ranked as competitive: the 13th District in the Central Valley seat held by Democrat Adam Gray and the 48th District seat being vacated by retiring Republican Darrell Issa in the San Diego area.

New Mexico also has one competitive seat that Republicans hope to flip. Utah has one new seat that will likely give Democrats a chance for congressional representation in the state’s otherwise reliably red delegation. Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have five congressional seats between them, all of which are Republican strongholds.

Key statewide offices up for grabs

Consequential statewide races are also on the ballot across the West.

In Arizona, election denialism is in the spotlight as voters face choosing a new governor, secretary of state and attorney general. The Republican candidates for all three positions have played roles in President Trump’s effort to dispute Arizona’s 2020 presidential election results. Analysts are watching how the broader electorate will react to candidates chosen by Republican primary voters, and how intensely the contests could inflame ongoing tensions in the state over the 2020 election.

In Nevada, a tight gubernatorial race is unfolding between Lombardo and the state attorney general, Democrat Aaron Ford. Oregon’s governor, Democrat Tina Kotek, is also up for reelection, facing Republican Christine Drazan, a state senator, in a race that Republicans hope will be more competitive than expected in the blue state.

Colorado has an open gubernatorial seat, where state attorney general Phil Weiser, a Democrat, faces Republican Victor Marx, a Christian ministry leader and former Marine. The seat is currently held by Democrat Jared Polis, who was term-limited from seeking reelection.

Marx has drawn attention to the race with sensational claims, including that he was forced to kill a man as a child, and his refusal in an interview to directly answer whether he had killed people as an adult.

Senate races

Oregon is the only West Coast state with a U.S. senator up for reelection this year, Democrat Jeff Merkley, who is seeking a fourth term. He faces Republican state Sen. David Brock Smith in a sleepy blue-state race that Merkley is favored to win.

Senate races are also on the ballot in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, where Republican incumbents are defending their seats, and in Colorado and New Mexico, where Democrats hold the incumbency.

In Idaho, the Democratic nominee dropped out of the race last week, effectively clearing a path for the independent candidate, Todd Achilles, a former Democratic state lawmaker who has denounced both parties, to compete seriously with Republican incumbent Sen. Jim Risch.

Pressure to force similar dropouts in Montana and South Dakota has been mounting by Democrats who fear having both Democratic and independent candidates on the ballot will split the left-leaning vote and hand the races to Republican incumbents. The Democratic nominees in both states told Politico last week they did not plan to drop out.

Top executives of California’s two biggest utilities warned they would take action to protect their shareholders if Sacramento lawmakers fail to pass legislation limiting their companies’ liabilities for wildfires sparked by their equipment.

“If the legislature does not act, or if they act and don’t actually solve the problem, then we’re going to have to take action,” said Patti Poppe, chief executive of Pacific Gas & Electric, on a July 23 call with Wall Street analysts.

Poppe did not specify what her company would do, but made it clear any action would protect shareholders’ money. Previously, she told Wall Street analysts that if lawmakers failed to pass legislation to protect the utilities, PG&E would use its cash to buy back the company’s shares, according to a report by the bank Jeffries.

That could raise the company’s stock price and benefit shareholders, while reducing money available for the utility’s California programs.

The comments from Poppe and Pedro Pizarro, chief executive of Edison International, came just before the state Legislature returned from summer break Monday to begin the last four weeks of its session.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislators have been working behind closed doors to address the state’s escalating cost of wildfires, including those caused by the utilities, The Times reported last month. The big electric companies have told their investors they are talking to Newsom and lawmakers about a bill package that would protect shareholders from paying for utility-sparked fires.

On Tuesday, government fire officials released their investigation into last year’s devastating Eaton fire, blaming Edison’s century-old transmission line, which the utility kept in place even though it had not carried power since 1971.

Last week, Edison’s Pizarro echoed some of Poppe’s statements. He told Wall Street analysts on a conference call that he too was prepared to make financial changes if the legislature does not pass a comprehensive bill that cuts the utilities’ financial wildfire risk before the legislative session ends Aug. 31.

Any legislation that passes without a protective framework for utilities, Pizarro said, would “influence how we prioritize and deploy future capital.”

Pizarro declined analysts’ requests to say where the company would cut back, other than saying it would continue spending aimed at keeping its grid safe and reliable.

“We’re going to evaluate the totality of the package that comes to us and figure out our response that goes along with it,” Pizarro said.

Pizarro also told analysts that without legislation supporting the utilities, Edison’s credit rating could be downgraded. If that happens, he said, it could raise bills for electric customers since the utility may have to pay a higher interest rate for new borrowings.

“That could be a significant cost impact through the cost of debt that gets passed through to SCE customers if we don’t have a framework in the next four weeks that is credit supportive for our utility,” Pizarro told the analysts.

Newsom and lawmakers are drawing up legislation based on recommendations in an April study that the governor ordered last year.

The final report didn’t focus on utilities’ responsibility for sparking at least seven of the 20 most destructive wildfires in state history. It suggested ways to reduce the cost of wildfire liabilities, including by capping fees of attorneys representing victims and reducing payments to survivors for non-economic damages like pain and suffering.

The report also suggested that utilities should no longer reimburse property insurers for damages of fires sparked by electrical equipment. Insurers say this would increase premiums for homeowners.

Edison is now facing thousands of lawsuits from the victims of the Eaton fire, which roared through Altadena, destroying more than 9,000 homes and other structures and killing 19 people. The lawsuits claim it was negligent for the fire, which Edison denies.

The utility created a program to pay for victims’ damages if they agree to give up their right to sue.

Edison has so far paid more than $1 billion to victims. Experts say the fire’s costs could exceed the $21-billion state wildfire fund that Newsom and lawmakers created in 2019 to protect Edison, PG&E and San Diego Gas & Electric.

If that happens, Edison customers must pay for the rest under legislation that Newsom and lawmakers introduced in the final days of last year’s legislative session.

Because of utility protections in legislation that Newsom and lawmakers passed in 2019 and last year, Edison has said it expects its shareholders to pay little for the Eaton fire. The utility says it believes it will be reimbursed for its damage payments to victims by the state wildfire fund and through customer bills, according to the company’s financial disclosures.

A coalition of wildfire survivors, consumer advocates and other groups wrote a letter to Newsom last month, asking him for legislation that keeps utilities accountable for the fires they cause.

The coalition pointed out that despite billions of dollars in damages from the Eaton fire, Edison’s profits soared last year by more than 200% — from $1.3 billion in 2024 to $4.5 billion.

The company’s board also rewarded Edison executives with higher salaries and bonuses. Pizarro received $16.6 million in cash, stock and other compensation, up 20% from 2024.

“For-profit companies that repeatedly cause catastrophic harm must be held accountable, not protected and enriched,” wrote Joy Chen, executive director of Every Fire Survivors Network, who is leading the coalition, in the letter to Newsom.

The letter warned that without reform of current state laws protecting utilities, disasters like the Eaton fire could happen again.

“Altadena is not the first community to endure this cycle, and it will not be the last,” the letter said.

Independent filmmaker Sylvia Ray always wanted to shoot her first feature film, “The Middle,” in California — as it’s set in Barstow, where she grew up.

Instead, she shot it in Mexico.

The math made the decision for her. Grants and incentives from the municipality of Torreón and the state of Coahuila covered 30-40% of her production budget, which came in under a million dollars. She didn’t pay for filming permits. On-site security was provided. Local hotels came in as sponsors. Over 21 days in March and April, the production hired 75 local crew members and college students.

“All I needed was a desert landscape and American homes. I could have definitely shot it in L.A. comfortably. Had I gotten more support and made it make sense for us financially,” Ray said. “But it just didn’t.”

Her budget was too small to qualify for any California film incentive at the time, as the state’s program doesn’t reach projects costing under $1 million. Filmmakers and producers say that gap is the whole problem. California’s incentives, even after the recent expansion, are built for productions several rungs above them.

Los Angeles County has plans to change that. Supervisors Lindsey Horvath and Kathryn Barger are developing an Entertainment Evergreen Fund, first introduced last July, which would channel money to productions the state’s tax credit doesn’t reach. It isn’t a tax credit, rather a grant program.

No dollar amount has been attached and the county has not committed funding. The board intends to explore a public-private model, with funding sources, amounts and any cost sharing determined only after an outside consultant completes an analysis and presents recommendations. Any final proposal returns to the board for public discussion and a vote.

“Like every County initiative, this work must be balanced with our current fiscal realities,” Barger said in a statement, adding that she hopes to build “a sustainable … partnership that helps keep film, television, and digital media production” and keeps L.A. “the global leader in entertainment production.”

Horvath said in a statement that direct investment in productions, like with this fund, “is the best way to keep the work here in LA. “

“State tax credits have been the most instrumental tool to keep production local, and we want to amplify their success to make clear to the industry: LA County wants you here,” she added.

Director Sylvia Ray on set of “The Middle.”

(Alex Crunker)

Why L.A. got expensive for small films

The trouble small-budget indies run into in L.A. is location and permitting costs, said Philip Sokoloski, vice president of communications at FilmLA, the nonprofit that coordinates permits and tracks local production.

“Many property owners inclined to rent out their homes or places of business for filming are used to an era where there was a lot of money to go around … It’s not true anymore,” Sokoloski said. “Until that message is widely understood, there’s a certain priced-out-of-the-market feeling that many indies are experiencing.”

A fund, he said, could help offset those costs.

The broader production picture hasn’t recovered. Between April and June, the greater L.A. area logged 4,711 shoot days, down nearly 13% from the same period a year earlier, according to FilmLA’s second-quarter data. Feature film shoots fell 20% year over year.

Incentivized work is one of the few bright spots. FilmLA said 170 projects between July 2025 and July 2026 have benefited from the California Film & TV Tax Credit Program while 33% of the 443 feature film shoot days in 2026’s second quarter came from productions receiving tax credits.

Making an indie movie is harder than it has ever been, said Steven Wolfe, a producer whose credits include “(500) Days of Summer” and more than 45 other films. Companies are less willing to finance independent projects, buyers are spending less and the exhibition market is harder to navigate. Yet “there’s an audience that’s very hungry for them,” he said.

Wolfe is developing what he calls a passion project with a first-time feature director, set to shoot in Los Angeles. Whether it gets made, he said, depends on whether the fund materializes. “All of us recognize the need to take extreme action and soon on trying to rebuild Los Angeles as the film capital of the world,” he said.

What’s being proposed

The fund is being shaped with input from the Indie Film Task Force, a group of industry voices led by the nonprofit NewFilmmakers Los Angeles. The task force pushed for grants rather than a tax credit, arguing that budgets this small don’t generate enough tax liability for a credit to be worth much.

“We see this as a foundational level investment. It is a trickle-up incentive that’s going to feed into the studios,” said NFMLA Executive Director Larry Laboe. “This is a way to invest very little money in a lot of different productions and hope for some big wins from those productions that can trickle up.”

Laboe points out Curry Barker’s box office underdog “Obsession” as the latest example of a major low-budget indie success. The horror flick, which hit theaters in May, was made in Los Angeles for a budget of $750,000 and has since grossed nearly $475 million worldwide.

Laboe, one of the proposal’s leading advocates, has projected the fund’s ceiling could reach $100 million depending on fundraising. NFMLA isn’t positioned to administer it, though he’s open to a role.

Cast and crew on set of Sylvia Ray’s “The Middle.”

(Adriana Martinez Benavides)

Barger said her conversations with filmmakers, labor representatives and production companies have surfaced “several promising ways an Evergreen Fund could strengthen our local industry,” including “grant incentives that encourage productions of all sizes — including independent filmmakers — to choose Los Angeles County.”

The case against

Film and TV production incentives rarely deliver the economic benefit that justifies them and only occasionally change where a project shoots, said Patrick Button, an associate professor of economics at Tulane University who studies the programs. He sees a particular problem with targeting small productions: Indie filmmakers, already working on thin budgets, are the least likely to relocate in pursuit of a subsidy. Chasing incentives across jurisdictions is largely the province of major studios.

“Despite the goal with these incentives being to attract filmmaking and lead to economic stimulus, that’s not materialized in the data,” Button said. “In general, these incentives don’t have a good return on investment for the states and their counties.” Low-budget producers, he added, aren’t the ones moving around, “which creates even less rationale.”

He also noted “a lot of stress on the LA County budget right now, and a lot of other things that the money could be spent on,” and expects the fund’s effect to be “very small.”

Laboe countered that covering even 10% of an indie production budget would help keep work local, and said filmmakers may be able to layer a county grant with the state credit where it applies.

Who it would reach

Independent productions are a meaningful share of SAG-AFTRA members’ income, particularly as major studios chase incentives abroad. More small films shot locally would mean more roles, said SAG-AFTRA Secretary-Treasurer Joely Fisher.

“People are rolling up their sleeves, raising money and going to make a movie for under a million bucks,” Fisher said. “But also they’re able to take more chances. People are being discovered in these indie movies, and I think that that’s a great thing for our newer members, who can cut their teeth on something indie.”

Making the film is only half of it. The fund should address marketing costs, or the films won’t get seen, said Jackie Brenneman, president of the Independent Film & Television Alliance. Those budgets traditionally come from distributors, but more independent films now go directly to theaters without one.

“You have to be able to exploit the thing you make,” Brenneman said. “If we want to be able to access theaters, the theater’s first question is going to be, what’s your marketing plan? What’s your marketing budget? And if you don’t have one, then you’re more likely to get four-walled” — renting the screen themselves and absorbing the risk.

Ray is still editing “The Middle.” Whatever happens with the fund, it won’t reach her first feature. But she’s already thinking about her next one.

“After this film is done, I’ll have my next one to worry about,” she said. “As a filmmaker here, there are so many hurdles, and it would just be nicer to have a clear pipeline, a scaling budget for all of these things and [provide] access to people who want to support emerging talent and artists, not just the studio system.”

The more I think about Proposition 40, the billionaire tax that will go before California voters in November, the angrier I get.

I’m angry at President Trump. His cruel slashing of Medicaid threatens the health of millions of Californians, may lead to the loss of hundreds of thousands of medical jobs and is the stated reason behind Proposition 40, which would levy a one-time 5% tax on billionaires. Trump invoked government deficits, but this was really his latest attack against people he sees as losers and thus expendable — people of color, the undocumented and especially the poor. “Evil” isn’t mean enough a word to describe this.

I’m upset at what Proposition 40 proposes to do. It’s a temporary stopgap that doesn’t reverse Trump’s Medicaid cuts and won’t solve the fundamental problems facing healthcare, or all the other things that make life in California so expensive. Plus, since when has a tax happened just once?

Proposition 30 was supposed to be a temporary tax increase for Californians who earn more than $250,000 a year in the name of propping up K-12 schools and community colleges. Passed in 2012, it was supposed to expire in 2019. Instead, voters extended it to 2030 — and our public schools are in more dire need than ever.

If Proposition 40 succeeds, you know every advocacy group from Yreka to San Ysidro will propose one-time taxes in the name of rescuing something or other. But relying on new taxes, or strengthening old ones, only shows that people are out of ideas — a dangerous scenario for democracy.

I’m enraged at billionaires. In the past, California’s captains of industry — your Dohenys, Gettys, Huntingtons and so many more — at least pretended to care about the rest of society by funding charities, the arts and other things meant to better the masses. Not this generation. Their avarice, their gleeful supplication before a tyrant like Trump, their obsession with breaking things and not caring about the consequences and their indifference to how the rest of us live have made billionaires a deserved scapegoat, about as popular as a diaper rash.

I’m furious at Proposition 40’s supporters. For a generation, California’s left has treated the rich as a goose that keeps laying golden, taxable eggs, making the state budget too reliant on a sliver of the population. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s budget summary this year estimated that the top 1% of Californians paid about 45% of the state’s personal income taxes from 2002 through 2023. What Proposition 40 supporters don’t get is that you can only smack a goose so much to give more until it bites back, which is what California billionaires are increasingly doing by throwing their cash around to defeat any political candidate exuding a whiff of progressivism.

Mark Zuckerberg and Lauren Sanchez attend the inauguration of President Trump Jan. 20, 2025, in Washington.

(Kenny Holston-Pool / Getty Images)

I’m upset at Proposition 40’s opponents. Backing two other ballot initiatives that would neutralize Proposition 40 doesn’t amount to a convincing argument against it. A point they do argue — that picking on billionaires will alienate them, push them out of California and tank the state’s budget — is at least plausible. But it’s not a winning argument in this era of populism on both the left and right, where voters seem to approve of cutting off your nose to spite the man.

I’m disgusted by Proposition 40’s architect. Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West President Dave Regan represents everything wrong with the union movement in California. He has made a mockery out of the proposition system by continually trotting out initiatives in the name of bettering the lives of blue-collar Californians. But as my colleague Taryn Luna reported last month, Regan doesn’t even believe in what he sells: He uses the threat of ballot measures to cut deals for his members, and his members alone. Way to use the rest of us as a bargaining chip, Dave.

I’m done with Newsom. He opposes Proposition 40 in the most Newsom-esque way possible. One of his arguments is that it will scare away billionaires from California — there he goes, carrying water for oligarchs again. His other argument is even more ludicrous — that Proposition 40 isn’t enough because there should be a permanent national tax on billionaires via changes to the tax code instead of a one-off. So Californians shouldn’t go after billionaires because you want to do it? Good luck explaining that logic to voters across the country if you run for president in 2028.

I’m mad at California Democratic Party leaders. Its executive board recently endorsed Proposition 40 despite the many loyal soldiers and allies who are opposed, including gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra, the California Teachers Assn. and Planned Parenthood. Other unions are expected to oppose Proposition 40 or sit out the campaign, setting up the party’s latest civil war in an election year when state Democrats need the fewest distractions. But that’s the party’s leadership for you — they’ve never met an internal crisis they didn’t make worse.

I’m revolted by the California Republican Party. It entered the second Trump administration with tailwinds behind its sails after a generation of statewide failures, installing a record number of Latino GOP legislators in Sacramento and grabbing enough voters of color to imagine a future in which they once again mattered. Instead, the party’s blind devotion to Trump has left it with the moral authority of a dandruff flake.

California’s Republican congressional delegation unanimously voted for Trump’s Medicaid cuts, even though rural parts of the state, which also happen to be deep red, will be severely affected. State GOP leaders either stayed silent or cheered as Trump volleyed other financial missiles against California, including canceling billions of dollars in clean energy initiatives solely because we’re a blue state. Proposition 40 supporters just need to say that Republicans oppose the ballot measure and Californians will line up to vote “yes” like In-N-Out fans idling to grab a Double-Double.

Not me. I’m angry, for sure: The fight over Proposition 40 will add nothing but rage to this election and a redwood grove’s worth of political mailers. The Medicaid cuts will worsen life for too many people. As odious as Trump and his side have been, Proposition 40 solves too little for too short a time, while potentially making things permanently worse.

Count me as a big, beautiful “no.”