Politics Desk

WASHINGTON — In a major shakeup of the agency at the center of the Trump administration’s immigration policies, President Trump announced Thursday that he was replacing embattled Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who will step down at the end of the month.

Trump said on Truth Social that he will nominate Sen. Markwayne Millin (R-Okla.) to take over the job, two days after Noem was grilled on Capitol Hill by Democrats and some Republicans.

Trump said Noem will become a “Special Envoy for The Shield of the Americas,” a new security initiative that he said would focus on the Western Hemisphere.

Noem, the former South Dakota governor, is the first Cabinet secretary to leave during Trump’s second term as president. Her departure comes amid intense scrutiny over immigration enforcement tactics since last year that intensified after the shooting deaths of two protesters in Minneapolis by immigration agents.

Those killings led to demands for more accountability within the agency, and disagreement over how to rein in the tactics deployed by federal immigration agents, have led to a weeks-long standoff over the agency’s funding.

Since the shutdown, lawmakers from both parties have used a series of contentious oversight hearings to question Noem’s management of the agency. During a hearing Tuesday, the criticism from Republicans was particularly blunt.

“We are an exceptional nation, and one of the reasons we are exceptional is because we expect exceptional leadership, and you’ve demonstrated anything but that,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) told Noem.

When Trump announced the shakeup on social media, Noem was speaking at a conference in Nashville. She answered questions from local law enforcement organizations, and did not offer hints that she knew her departure was imminent. She was not asked about her firing during the event.

After the conference ended, Noem thanked Trump for her special envoy appointment, a diplomatic position she said will have her working to curb drugs from coming into the United States.

“I am super excited about this opportunity. It came at not a complete surprise, but it came at a little bit of a surprise,” Mullin told reporters outside the Capitol.

Mullin said he was not expecting the call Thursday, but that he is “ready to get started” and will work to “earn everybody’s vote,” regardless of party affiliation.

“When I go into this position, yes, I am a Republican, yes I am conservative, but the Department of Homeland Security is to keep everybody — regardless of whether you support me , if you don’t support me, regardless of what your thoughts are — I am here to enforce the policies that Congress passed,” Mullin said.

Mullin would need to be confirmed by the Senate, but under federal law is allowed to serve as acting Homeland Security secretary while his nomination is pending.

When the news broke, Republican senators appeared to be congratulating Mullin on the Senate floor as the chamber was conducting business. Meanwhile, Democratic senators applauded the decision to fire Noem but lamented that she will continue to serve in public office.

“The atrocities she oversaw, the falsehoods she peddled, & the corruption she committed — all richly deserve her discharge,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) wrote on X. “President Trump should have made it explicit, rather than disguising it with another position of public trust.”

Noem was also criticized over how her department spent billions of dollars allocated by Congress.

In the congressional hearings this week, lawmakers questioned her on a $200-million ad campaign she oversaw that urged anyone in the U.S. illegally to deport voluntarily.

Noem told the Senate panel on Tuesday that the president approved the campaign, which the White House denied to NBC News.

Early criticism of Noem came last June, as DHS was scaling up raids throughout Los Angeles. During a news conference at the Westwood federal building, Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was forced to the ground and handcuffed by federal agents after he interrupted Noem to ask her a question.

“If this is how the Department of Homeland Security responds to a senator with a question,” Padilla said later. “I can only imagine what they’re doing to cooks, to day laborers out in the Los Angeles community and throughout California and throughout the country.”

Padilla reacted to Noem’s ouster as evidence of public pressure working to hold her to account.

“This is why we don’t give up,” he said.

Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights in Los Angeles, said Noem’s departure was long overdue.

“Her tenure, as two congressional hearings this week clearly showed, was defined by chaos, cruelty, corruption, and a refusal to take responsibility for the abuses carried out by federal agents under her watch,” she said. “For immigrant communities across the country, her leadership represented a dangerous escalation of policies that treated families and workers as targets rather than as human beings who contribute to and strengthen this nation.”

Salas said the new Homeland Security secretary must ensure transparency, respect the Constitution and treat immigrants with dignity.

WASHINGTON — A federal panel reviewing President Trump’s plans to build a ballroom at the White House has set April 2 for a final vote on the project, the chairman said as the agency prepared to give additional consideration to the construction plans.

Will Scharf, chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission and a top aide to the Republican president, made the announcement Thursday at the start of the panel’s March meeting.

The panel will hear additional details about the project from the White House as well as its own staff, and had been expected to vote on Thursday.

But Scharf announced that the vote was switched to April to give every member of the public who wants to comment a chance to do so. More than 100 people had signed up to comment at Thursday’s meeting, which was being conducted online as a result.

The panel has also been flooded with scores of written comments about Trump’s plans to build a 90,000-square-foot addition where the East Wing of the White House once stood. Trump has said it will cost about $400 million and be paid for with private money. Trump had the East Wing demolished in October.

Scharf said the meeting was being conducted online to ease the public testimony portion, which he said was likely to extend into Friday given the number of people who had signed up to speak.

“They are taking time out of what I presume are busy schedules to join us,” he said. “One way or the other, we are going to make sure that members of the public have the opportunity to be heard on this project.”

Critics of the project have argued that Trump should not have demolished the East Wing until the National Capital Planning Commission and a separate panel, the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, had reviewed and voted on his plans. The fine arts panel approved the project last month.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation, a private, nonprofit group, asked a federal judge to temporarily halt construction until the White House submitted the plans both to federal panels and to Congress for approval, and allowed the public to comment.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon rejected the request last week, and the trust has said it plans to file an amended lawsuit.

Superville writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — New signs of a widening regional conflict emerged Thursday as the war with Iran entered its sixth day, with European allies pledging warships and access to military bases for the U.S. campaign, Israel intensifying strikes in Lebanon against Hezbollah militants, and Kurdish forces preparing for a potential incursion into northern Iran.

Iran continued retaliatory missile and drone attacks against Israel and U.S. military sites across the region. The strikes hit at least “10 countries that did not attack [Iran],” British Prime Minister Kier Starmer said at a news conference Thursday.

Starmer announced new military deployments and confirmed the U.K. will allow American forces to use British bases for defensive operations against Iran. The move was a reversal of Starmer’s initial cautious approach, which drew criticism from President Trump, who said, “He’s no Winston Churchill.”

“I took the decision that the U.K. would not join the initial strikes on Iran by the U.S. and Israel,” Starmer said. “That decision was deliberate. It was in the national interest. And I stand by it. But when Iran started attacking countries around the Gulf and the wider region, the situation changed.”

The United Kingdom will send four additional RAF Typhoon jets to reinforce its squadron in Qatar, deploy Wildcat helicopters with anti-drone capabilities to Cyprus and dispatch the Royal Navy destroyer HMS Dragon to the eastern Mediterranean.

The moves place Britain among the most active European partners supporting the U.S. war effort, as Starmer warned that the conflict will likely “continue for some time,” he said. It comes after an Iranian drone struck a British military base in Cyprus on Monday, which has led to a mounting of European naval resources.

Located just 150 miles from Israel in the eastern Mediterranean, the island of Cyprus has emerged as a strategic — and exposed — nerve center in the U.S. offensive against Iran. It hosts vital British military bases and acts as an intelligence, surveillance, and logistics hub in countering Iranian influence and proxy attacks.

On Thursday, Italy’s defense minister, Guido Crosetto, said Thursday that his country would follow the lead of France, Spain and the Netherlands to aid in the defense of Cyprus.

“Within the EU it made sense to send a message of support to Cyprus,” he said.

Smoke plumes billow following Israeli bombardment on Beirut’s southern suburbs on Monday.

(Ibrahim Amro/AFP via Getty Images)

Spain announced Thursday it would dispatch its advanced frigate Cristóbal Colón to Cyprus, after initially maintaining a “no to war” stance.

France also authorized temporary access to U.S. aircraft on bases located on French soil, a French army general staff official told Reuters.

And Germany, a country that has explicitly ruled out military participation in war with Iran and has criticized the legality of the initial U.S.–Israeli strikes, said Western powers must prepare for further escalation.

“Europe must remain united in the face of this crisis,” German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said during an emergency meeting of European leaders. “We will not allow ourselves to be divided while regional stability is threatened.”

Meanwhile, conflict has reached a fever pitch between Israel and Hezbollah, the Lebanese-based Iranian proxy and key pillar of what Iran has called the “Axis of Resistance.” Overnight, Israel launched heavy airstrikes across southern Lebanon and issued urgent evacuation warnings for the southern suburbs of the capital, Beirut.

The outbreak of hostilities in Lebanon marks the end of a Israeli-Hezbollah truce and the opening of a major second front in the war with Iran. The fighting erupted after Hezbollah launched a barrage of drones and rockets at Israeli military sites—a retaliation for the joint U.S.-Israeli assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Lebanon’s health ministry reported that at least 102 people have been killed by the Israeli strikes so far. In the Beirut suburbs, the Israeli military ordered residents of the Hezbollah-dominated Dahieh district to “save your lives and evacuate your homes immediately.”

“Dahieh? There’s not going to be a Dahieh any more,” one young man said as he talked to a family member on the phone at a media vantage point in the nearby hills.

The widening conflict has also drawn in Ukraine, which has some of the world’s most extensive experience in defending against Iranian-made Shahed drones. Such drones have been deployed by Russia in its war on Ukraine.

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky said late Wednesday that the United States and other allies in Europe and the Middle East have sought Kyiv’s “expertise and practical support” to help them stop Iranian drones.

“Of course, any assistance we provide is only on the condition that it does not weaken our own defense in Ukraine and that it serves as an investment in our diplomatic capabilities,” Zelensky said in a social media post. “We help protect against war those who help us — Ukraine — bring the war to a dignified conclusion.”

While the aerial and naval battle intensifies across the Middle East, a ground war may also be on the horizon.

People arrive to sign a condolence book in memory of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei at the Embassy of Iran in New Delhi, India, on Thursday.

(Raj K Raj/Hindustan Times via Getty Images)

The United States and Israel have increased coordination with Kurdish armed groups along Iran’s western frontier, hoping to exploit longstanding tensions between Tehran and Kurdish factions opposed to the Iranian government, Kurdish officials told the Associated Press.

Iranian forces have already launched missile and drone strikes against Kurdish-controlled areas in northern Iraq following the initial U.S.–Israeli assault on Iranian targets.

Those strikes targeted areas around the city of Erbil and on Kurdish opposition groups operating near the Iranian border, locations where U.S. military forces and diplomatic facilities are also present.

Officials have not publicly confirmed whether Kurdish groups will mount cross-border operations, but security analysts say an incursion into Iranian territory could open a new front in the conflict.

U.S. Central Command, meanwhile, is asking the Pentagon to send more military intelligence officers to its headquarters in Tampa, Florida, to support operations against Iran for at least 100 days, but likely through September, according to a notification obtained by Politico.

The moves come as the House prepares to vote Thursday on a war powers resolution that would withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities in Iran, and limit the president’s power to wage war in the region. A similar measure failed Wednesday in the Senate, mostly along party lines.

Quinton reported from Washington and Bulos from Beirut.

Two months after January 3, the country has found itself at an unprecedented crossroads with three main political actors: the chavista regime, the government of the United States, and the Venezuelan opposition.

Chavismo now faces a historically unique situation after 27 years of political (as well as social and economic) control. It is under pressure from the US to move toward a transition, while at the same time trying to contain the tensions that exist within its own internal structures.

For its part, Washington is trying to steer a transition in Venezuela that is acceptable for both its domestic and foreign policy, leveraging the influence it gained from the capture of Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores over both the regime and the opposition.

And the opposition has entered a situation of undeclared conflict. In just a few days, the opposition landscape has shifted in unimaginable ways, with the perception of inaction from María Corina Machado, the sudden emergence of Enrique Márquez during the State of the Union address, and the rest of the opposition reassessing its options.

The inevitable amid uncertainty

The path toward a transition at this moment is uncertain. The regime is seeking a balance between satisfying US demands while avoiding, as much as possible, the deterioration of its own internal political and economic arrangements. At the same time, it continues to move quickly to consolidate control over the process, and more and more details are emerging about how it is setting the guidelines for the Rodríguez siblings. For instance, the visit this week by Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum.

The opposition universe appears to be an earthquake, above all amid the practical disappearance of María Corina Machado from public debate and, more recently, the “Márquez effect,” whose medium or long-term impact remains uncertain. Where there is consensus, however, is on the need for a new election. Marco Rubio, María Corina Machado, and now Enrique Márquez are on the same page: there must be new elections that legitimize the political transition. As for the Rodrigato, we can imagine what it thinks about that.

A new election to choose the opposition’s presidential candidate would be a way to confront several elephants in the room.

Until just a few days ago, it would have been easy to argue that the opposition’s presidential candidate should be Machado. After all, the results of July 28, 2024 were fundamentally the result of her leadership, and she would have been the presidential candidate if the Maduro regime had allowed it.

But Márquez’s appearance in Washington DC and his subsequent press conference suggested that this Zuliano “black swan” could be acting with the acquiescence of both the Rodrigato and the Trump administration. Evidence of this includes Márquez being invited to Trump’s address, as well as his comments about a figure as close to the Rodríguez siblings as José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero.

For that reason, it now seems that there will be an election sooner or later. It also seems that, as things stand today, we could head into that election with at least two candidates on the opposition side.

That would be a good scenario for the Rodrigato.

New primaries

In times of legitimacy crisis, the proper course is to look to the sovereign. Given everything that has happened, it seems necessary to call a new primary vote to choose an opposition candidate—whoever the Rodrigato’s candidate may be—in the presidential election that must take place given Maduro’s absolute absence.

A new election to choose the opposition’s presidential candidate would be a way to confront several elephants in the room. The first is the need to present the other two actors (the regime and the United States) with an electoral calendar that should not be unnecessarily delayed. The second is the convenience of unifying and strengthening party structures. If the process is well managed, it could encourage a reunion of the different opposition forces around a common and higher objective.

Another elephant shaking Venezuela’s narrow public space is the urgency of restarting citizen mobilization around a concrete political initiative. Finally, those primaries could once again make it possible to go into a presidential election with a single candidate, preventing the regime from promoting multiple “opposition” candidacies to divide the electorate.

The primaries that chose Henrique Capriles as the candidate for the 2012 presidential election, and the primaries that selected María Corina Machado as the candidate for the 2024 presidential election, were good precedents for successfully resolving several political problems. Considering the sovereign is a good idea, or at least most of the time.

On its own, the phrase “Christ is king” sums up a core tenet of the Christian faith, that Jesus is the divine ruler of the universe. Catholics and many Protestants celebrate a Christ the King Sunday each year.

But the ancient proclamation can morph into something political, controversial or even sinister, depending on who says it and how it’s said.

In recent years, “Christ is king” and similar phrases have been chanted at political rallies, posted on social media and proclaimed in speeches by voices on the right.

At times the phrase is used to support the notion of America as a Christian nation or as one that owes its allegiance specifically to the Christian God. Some current Cabinet officials and recent members of Congress have used the phrase in speeches and on social media.

But other times, political activists have paired “Christ is king” with anti-Zionist statements or negative Jewish stereotypes.

The phrase has gained popularity among far-right figures and their followers. Conservative influencer Candace Owens, who shares antisemitic conspiracies, sells branded “Christ is King” coffee mugs and T-shirts.

The controversy connects to a larger schism on the right, with some conservatives pushing back against an increasingly vocal faction whose denunciations of Israel, critics say, often combine with blatant antisemitism. Some of the latter group insist they’re not antisemitic, just anti-Zionist. That itself is a sharp break from what was once a near-consensus of pro-Israel sentiment among Republicans.

But there are times when the use of the phrase “Christ is king” is unquestionably hostile toward Jews, said a 2025 report by the Rutgers University-affiliated Network Contagion Research Institute.

Analyzing social media postings between 2021 and 2024, the institute reported a dramatic increase of the phrase “Christ is king,” often used as a hate meme targeting Jews. The report lamented this deviation from its historical use as a hopeful, sacred affirmation with biblical roots.

“The weaponization or hijacking of ‘Christ is King’ represents a disturbing inversion of its original intent. Rather than sacralizing shared values, extremists have exploited this religious expression to justify hatred,” the report said.

Controversy spotlighted at religious liberty hearing

A recent meeting of the Religious Liberty Commission, a group President Trump created and appointed, put the phrase and related controversies in the spotlight.

At a Feb. 9 hearing focused on antisemitism, a witness, Seth Dillon, spoke of often hearing people use the phrase “Christ is king” followed immediately by a highly contemptuous slur toward Jews.

“This should offend every Christian,” said Dillon, the CEO of the conservative satirical site The Babylon Bee.

Commission member Carrie Prejean Boller repeatedly grilled witnesses about whether opposing Zionism could be construed as anti-Jewish. She said that as a Catholic she opposes Zionism but that this is not antisemitic. She asked Dillon if he thought “saying ‘Christ is king’ is antisemitic.”

Dillon said no and that, as a Christian, he regularly declares that “Christ is my king” — but context matters.

He testified that the phrase has been co-opted by Groypers, alluding to the followers of far-right influencer Nick Fuentes, who has spread antisemitic views.

It’s “using the Lord’s name in an abusive manner,” Dillon said.

Fuentes’ supporters chanted “Christ is king” at the Million MAGA March, a November 2020 rally denying the Republican Trump’s defeat to Democrat Joe Biden in that year’s presidential election.

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a Republican who chairs the Religious Liberty Commission, announced Prejean Boller’s removal from the panel after the meeting. He asserted that she tried to “hijack” the hearing for her own agenda.

Following the commission meeting, Prejean Boller has posted prolifically on X, denouncing “Zionist supremacists” and repeatedly using the phrase “Christ is King.” She also has denounced the war launched by the U.S. and Israel against Iran.

A recent Catholic convert, she said she opposes a popular evangelical view that modern-day Israel exists in fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

A religious phrase ‘co-opted by extremist figures’

The commission hearing was hardly the first forum to air controversy over “Christ is king.”

The Network Contagion Research Institute’s 2025 report noted that while many “Christ is king” references on social media are strictly religious, the phrase has been “systematically co-opted by extremist figures.”

The report said Fuentes and other extremists use the phrase as a “white supremacist mantra publicizing their antisemitic beliefs.”

Fuentes has said the Holocaust was exaggerated, and he has denounced “organized Jewry in America.” He has claimed to be in battle with “satanic, globalist elites,” an antisemitic trope.

The religious phrase “Christ is king” is not inherently political, said Brian Kaylor, president and editor-in-chief of Word&Way, a progressive site covering faith and politics.

But that fact provides a “deniability” to those politicizing it, he said.

“We’re at a dangerous point with the phrase ‘Christ is king’ because of the heavy activity and use of it on the far right in very fascist, antisemitic ways,” said Kaylor, a Baptist minister and author of several books on religion and politics. “We’re at the danger of that phrase losing its meaning to where this new antisemitic use is the dominant definition.”

The phrase has also gained popularity in political settings with some on the Catholic and evangelical right who are strongly pro-Israel and have repeatedly denounced antisemitism, such as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Kaylor said the phrase is often used as “a declaration of Christian nationalism ” asserting that “the nation should be brought under the dictates of Christ.”

A dispute over politics and religion

The controversy has highlighted both religious and political fissures.

The Vatican has diplomatic relations with Israel and has also recognized a state of Palestine. Pope Leo XIV has called for a two-state solution while denouncing antisemitism. During the Israel-Hamas war, popes Francis and Leo denounced the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas and Israel’s massive military response, with Leo demanding a halt to Israel’s “collective punishment” of Gaza’s population.

Other Catholics on the Religious Liberty Commission noted that Jesus and his followers were Jews and that a seminal 1965 Vatican document rejects antisemitism and the blaming of all Jews, including those alive today, for Jesus’ crucifixion.

Patrick, the commission chairman, said the dispute with Prejean Boller reflects “a real problem with a very small group in our Republican Party.” Antisemitism needs to be repudiated or “this is going to destroy our party,” he said on “The Mark Levin Show,” a podcast.

But Prejean Boller has galvanized supporters from a staunchly conservative group called Catholics for Catholics, a lay-led, self-described “militant organization dedicated to the evangelization of this great country.”

It plans to honor Prejean Boller at a March 19 event with a Catholic Champion Award in Washington featuring speakers such as Owens.

Prejean Boller has reposted announcements of the event on X, including one post that shared a Spanish-language statement that translates to “We will not rest until we convert the USA into a Catholic nation.” The post concluded in English with “Christ is King!”

Smith writes for the Associated Press.

When a Los Angeles County judge ordered a notorious Watts scrap metal yard to permanently halt its operations last year, many residents and environmental advocates thought it might finally bring an end to the facility’s dangerous pollution. Instead, the shutdown may have only marked the beginning of what could be a lengthy process to erase decades of environmental degradation.

For nearly 75 years, S&W Atlas Iron & Metal had crushed car parts, shredded aluminum cans and processed an assortment of recyclable metals. Over that time, the facility and its owners racked up dozens of environmental violations and were eventually criminally convicted of crimes that endangered students next door at Jordan High School and residents of Watts.

Since Atlas’ court-ordered closure, the towering piles of scrap metal have largely disappeared from the 3-acre recycling facility. Jordan High’s campus hasn’t been rocked by explosions, pelted with shrapnel or blanketed in layers of toxic, metallic dust.

But one of the most serious, and remaining, threats has gone unnoticed until recently.

A contractor hired by Atlas recently measured a witch’s brew of toxic chemicals percolating in the soil and groundwater beneath the site at orders of magnitude above California’s standards, according to court documents. Around five feet underground, a soil probe detected the highest reading of vinyl chloride — just one of the several carcinogens at the site — more than 1.3 million times higher than the state benchmark.

“What they found were astronomical levels of these contaminants,” said Danielle Hoague, director of research for the Better Watts Initiative.

“I think it’s definitely a hidden danger. I don’t think that the community has been informed of what underlies Atlas. But I would assume that people are experiencing the health effects of this.”

State regulators are still hashing out the scope of the cleanup at the shuttered industrial site. But, more concerning, Watts residents and school district officials fear these contaminants may be migrating with groundwater, posing a risk to neighboring Jordan High School and Jordan Downs housing complex. If that is the case, the question is who will foot the bill to clean up this pollution?

“The cleanup of the Atlas site has been slow, and Atlas is proceeding with a lack of executed urgency,” an L.A. Unified School District spokesperson said in a statement.

Atlas “has failed to advise Los Angeles Unified promptly of contamination found just feet away from the school campus and the adjacent Jordan Downs Housing Development,” the spokesperson added.

Shutting down a source of pollution is only the first step in campaigns for cleaner air. It’s often equally burdensome, time-consuming and expensive to hold polluters accountable for cleaning up the legacy contamination at their own property. And it’s even more difficult to compel companies to decontaminate nearby properties that may have been affected by their operations.

In Lincoln Heights, decades passed after the closure of a massive dry-cleaning operation before residents learned of underground contamination spreading off-site, potentially threatening nearby homes and an elementary school. In Newport Beach, a sprawling aerospace and defense hub was converted into luxury homes three decades ago, and homeowners were only recently informed about residual toxic pollution. In Jurupa Valley, residents were alarmed to learn about toxic vapors seeping into their homes after contaminated groundwater migrated several miles from a former hazardous waste dump uphill.

In Watts, many residents were already aware of the danger posed by toxic metals produced by Atlas’ operations. At times, metallic dust left parts of Jordan High’s campus covered in an iridescent sheen, and the school district has in the past removed contaminated soil from the campus.

But it was far more difficult to predict that pollution could be spreading underground. Many of the chemicals found beneath Atlas evaporate at room temperature and sneak into buildings through cracks in foundations, floor drains or other gaps — a process known as vapor intrusion.

Over the past year, an LAUSD consultant conducted two rounds of air sampling at Jordan High. The levels of airborne chemicals the detected in gym’s basement suggest toxic vapors are infiltrating the building. However, the consultant has said more air sampling is necessary to determine whether it constitutes an unacceptable health risk.

So far, the district says the concentrations have not warranted closing school buildings yet.

In the meantime, the school district is pleading with the state regulators to get Atlas to commit to cleaning up the toxic fallout.

A Los Angeles County judge recently ordered an audit of Atlas’ finances, raising doubts about the company’s ability to pay potential damages.

But community leaders, like Timothy Watkins, president of the Watts Labor Community Action Committee, won’t be satisfied until the case moves from courtroom to cleanup.

“There’s no champion for us. So we have to find a way — with very, very limited resources — to get our story out in a way that begins to raise some kind of alarm and awareness of the danger here.”

More recent air news

New research suggests some air pollutants can significantly alter insect behavior, science journalist Gennaro Tomma writes in National Geographic. Smog-forming emissions can interfere with insect communication by breaking down pheromones, causing ant colonies to exhibit aggression toward their own members and neglect their larvae.

The Trump administration reversed a Biden-era rule limiting brain-damaging mercury emissions from coal plants, arguing compliance costs threatened energy reliability, Guardian environmental reporter Oliver Milman writes. The rollback allows some of the coal plants to avoid expensive upgrades, sparking debate over the trade-off between economic concerns and public health risks.

The California Air Resources Board set an Aug. 10 deadline for some of the nation’s largest companies to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Sacramento Bee’s climate reporter Chaewon Chung. A pair of state laws enacted in 2023 required companies with more than $1 billion in annual revenue to adhere to the reporting requirements.

In other climate news

As Western states brace for deep cuts to their allotments of Colorado River water, one California water agency may be in a position to help. San Diego County Water Authority’s board recently voted to consider selling a portion of its water to Arizona and Nevada, reports Ian James for the LA. Times. The San Diego area is home to the nation’s largest desalination plant, allowing the agency to rely less on unpredictable reservoirs.

The escalating war in the Middle East has triggered the biggest oil and gas market disruption since 2022, driving a surge in energy prices and forcing a re-evaluation of energy security, Bloomberg reports. While high prices could bolster the case for deploying renewable energy, experts warn that worsening inflation — from higher energy costs — could ironically hamper the shift to clean energy.

A Southern California architect is challenging the notion that wildfire-resistant designs can’t also be visually stunning. L.A. Times wildfire reporter Noah Haggerty interviewed a Palisades fire survivor who is so confident about the design of his newly constructed Spanish-revival home, he asked the fire department if he could spark a controlled fire on his property.

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

For more air quality news, follow Tony Briscoe on X and LinkedIn.

Paramount’s $111-billion deal to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery will put two of the most storied journalism brands — CNN and CBS News — under one roof.

The combination has been proposed before with the aim of consolidating news-gathering costs. Those plans fell apart largely over who would be in control.

But if the Paramount-WBD transaction is approved by regulators, CNN and CBS News will be forced into potentially rocky marriage where they will have to sort out leadership roles, personnel and editorial direction.

It’s still too early to determine what those moves will be and how widely they will be felt.

Last week CNN Chief Executive Mark Thompson told his troops to avoid “jumping to conclusions about the future.”

But what is certain is that every permutation will be scrutinized closely due to the fraught relationships both CNN and CBS News have with the Trump administration.

“There have been many conversations over the years about combining CBS News and CNN,” said Jon Klein, a digital media entrepreneur who previously held leadership roles at both organizations. “But this time, it’s different. The business case always made sense — but today you’ve got the overlay of the political agenda.”

Before Paramount prevailed in its bid for CNN’s parent, Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison’s father Larry Ellison reportedly discussed changes to the network with Trump. For years, Trump has made CNN the poster child of his “fake news” claims and impugned many of its journalists.

“What has David Ellison and Larry Ellison promised Donald Trump with regard to what they’re going to do with CNN?” said one former executive. “Before you even get through the hurdles of doing this, that’s the overriding question. Are they going to fire anchors Trump doesn’t like?”

There is also apprehension at CBS News, where David Ellison installed Bari Weiss as editor-in-chief in October, with a mandate to have network’s coverage appeal to the political center.

CBS News editor-in-chief Bari Weiss with Turning Point USA’s Erika Kirk at a town hall that aired Dec. 20.

(CBS Photo Archive / CBS via Getty Images)

Weiss — founder of the independent media company The Free Press — came into the role with no experience running a TV news organization, building her reputation as an opinion writer with contrarian views and a disdain for woke ideology.

The former New York Times opinion writer, who is staunchly pro-Israel, drew criticism over the weekend for putting a fire emoji over a comment criticizing New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s condemnation of the U.S. military action in Iran — an unusual public reaction for the head of a major news organization.

Weiss wasted no time taking on the prestigious CBS news magazine “60 Minutes,” which has long been a stubbornly independent operation. She delayed a story on the harsh El Salvador prison used by the U.S. to house undocumented migrants saying it needed more reporting. The story’s correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi accused CBS News management of placating the White House, turning the decision into a public relations fiasco for the network.

Significant changes are coming to “60 Minutes” later this spring, with one or more of its correspondents possibly being replaced, according to people familiar with Weiss’ plans who were not authorized to comment. Weiss has also expressed interest in hiring right-leaning on-air talent for CBS News.

Weiss arrived after Paramount settled a Trump lawsuit with the dubious claim that a “60 Minutes” interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris was deceptively edited to aid her 2024 presidential election campaign against him.

The willingness to settle the suit was largely seen as Paramount capitulating to Trump in order to get government approval of its merger with Skydance Media. The Ellisons’ tight relationship with Trump was also seen as an asset in their successful pursuit of Warner Bros. Discovery.

The stew of issues bubbling through the transactions is why most of the rank and file at CNN rooted for Netflix to prevail in its bidding for Warner Bros. Discovery. The Netflix bid for WBD did not include CNN or the company’s cable networks, which in the words of one insider would have made it “a stay of execution.”

Now CNN staffers, speaking on the condition of anonymity, are bracing for upheaval. When they look at CBS News navigating the changes under Weiss, they are reminded what they went through after Warner Bros. Discovery took over their network and tried to push the coverage to the center.

After a declaration by WBD Chief Executive David Zaslav that the network needed to be more accommodating to conservative voices — and the telecast of a rowdy Trump town hall — CNN experienced an exodus of viewers.

But the biggest fear that the merger brings is consolidation and the loss of jobs. CNN has 3,400 employees while CBS News is at around 1,000. Cost-cutting is expected to be aggressive across the combined Paramount-WBD, which will have a mountain of debt to service.

The parent companies of CBS and CNN have discussed merging or sharing news-gathering operations and on-air talent numerous times over several decades. In 2019, Viacom, the CBS News parent at the time, had a deal in place to pay CNN an annual license fee to provide international coverage.

Under that plan, CBS would have maintained a few of its signature overseas correspondents, while shuttering its bureaus around the world. But Viacom backed out of the deal.

CNN’s international coverage has long been its calling card and its likely the network will handle that reporting for CBS News once Paramount takes ownership.

Combining the news-gathering operation stateside will be trickier, as CBS News has employees and vendors that operate under contracts with the Writers Guild of America East, SAG-AFTRA and other unions. CNN is a non-union shop.

Resolving the union issue has been a snag in every previous discussion to combine CBS News and CNN over the years, according to several former executives at both outlets.

CNN news anchor Anderson Cooper in New York in 2016.

(Associated Press)

Another development worth watching is what role Anderson Cooper will play in the merged operation. Cooper signed a new deal with CNN last year, but turned down an offer to remain as a “60 Minutes” correspondent, a role he’s had since 2007.

CBS News has pursued Cooper several times over the years to be its evening news anchor. There was even a proposal in 2018 for him to helm “CBS Evening News” while keeping his nightly prime time program on CNN. That idea was shot down at CNN, where leadership believed he was unique to the network’s brand.

In a statement, Cooper cited a desire to spend more time with his two children as the reason for passing on another “60 Minutes” deal. However, associates have said his wariness over the direction of CBS News under Weiss made his decision easier.

Now Cooper is likely headed into the CNN-CBS News tent, which may make him feel a bit like Michael Corleone in “Godfather III” when he said “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!”

“I’m not going to start a war. I’m going to stop wars.”
— Donald Trump, in his victory speech Nov. 6, 2024

It’s bad enough that President Trump has broken that oft-repeated pledge and unilaterally started a war, without engaging either Congress or the American public. And that, by his war of choice against Iran, he has in the most perilous way to date betrayed his signature “America First” standard, at least as longtime proponents Marjorie Taylor Greene, Megyn Kelly, Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson and others mean it, and as many people thought he did too.

What’s even worse than Trump’s mendacity about stopping foreign wars is the broader truth that his war on Iran underscores: In the major theaters of U.S. foreign policy — the Mideast, Europe and Asia — he is essentially letting foreigners set his course, America’s course. And to state the obvious: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping do not have America’s interests at heart.

It has long been a defining contradiction of Trump that the wannabe strongman repeatedly shows himself to be in thrall to the world’s actual strongmen. His affinity for them has for years puzzled observers in this country and abroad. Trump strikes a pose — say, on negotiating with Iran about its nukes program, promising peace in Ukraine, hitting China with tariffs — only to crumple after a phone call, a meeting or a slap back from his opposite number.

It’s always hard for a person without a strong core to maintain a stand.

Obviously different factors are at play in Trump’s relationships with Israel, a U.S. ally, with longtime adversaries Russia and China and, more specifically, with each nation’s leaders. But all three cases reflect a personalization of foreign policy that is dangerously unique to Trump. For him, it’s less “what’s good for my country” than “what’s good for me” and “who likes me.” Time and again, he’s been explicit about that.

For all Trump’s cosplaying as a strongman, he shows his weakness as a national leader when he lets foreign counterparts share the wheel with him. As a consequence, he’s driving America erratically at best. At worst, he’s steering into another costly, bloody “forever war” of the sort he railed against for decades.

He’s gone in a direction in the Middle East that, polls show, pluralities or even majorities of Americans didn’t want to go. Trump has received none of the initial rally ’round support that past presidents enjoyed after initiating military operations. That’s a hazardous place to be domestically. Most Republicans are behind Trump on the war, but not by the usual high numbers. After all, it was disgust with forever wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that sent many people flocking to Trump’s “America First” banner to begin with.

For years he warned that other presidents and presidential candidates would start a war in Iran, World War III even. Yet here we are. And after days of what Kelly derided on air as the “10,000 different explanations” that Trump has given for attacking Iran and killing its top political and military leaders, on Monday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphatically provided just one: Because Israel was going to strike Iran first, the United States had to join the attack to protect U.S. personnel and assets in the region from Iran’s retaliation.

Cue the blowback in MAGA world: “He’s flat out telling us that we’re in a war with Iran because Israel forced our hand,” MAGA pundit Matt Walsh lashed out online. And then Trump contradicted his secretary of State on the rationale for the attacks. Yet Rubio wasn’t the only one citing Israel’s plans as the war’s predicate. So did House Speaker “MAGA Mike” Johnson. On Tuesday, Trump himself said he had to act fast because the Iranians “were getting ready to attack Israel.”

As Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, responded, “If we equate a threat to Israel as the equivalent of an imminent threat to the United States, then we are in uncharted territory.”

Similarly, in June, Trump ordered a devastating one-off strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities to support Israel’s 12-day war against Iran. For months after, Netanyahu hounded Trump to stop the subsequent peace talks with Iran and go back on offense with Israel. So now Trump has complied, striking even as negotiations with Iran were ongoing. Sen. Lindsey Graham, the once respected Republican from South Carolina, offered his sycophantic spin: “Bibi and Trump are the modern Roosevelt-Churchill combination.”

The latters’ grave sites surely trembled.

As for Asia, Trump talks a good game against China, and, yes, he’s imposed big tariffs. But just as often he’s backtracked, often after talking with Xi. Trump’s admiration of the Chinese autocrat and his eagerness to please him is palpable. In fact, in dealing with Xi, Trump in both of his terms has violated his own words in “The Art of the Deal”: “The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it. That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you’re dead.”

No one is more worried about Trump’s regard for Xi than the Taiwanese, living under threat from China. Just recently Trump delayed arms sales to Taiwan approved by Congress lest he upset Xi ahead of their Beijing meeting in April.

In Europe, meanwhile, Trump continues to be played by Putin at the “peace” table to end Russia’s war in Ukraine — the war that candidate Trump said he’d settle in a day. More than a year later, he continues to harangue Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky to make concessions to the invader, never demanding anything from Putin.

Most heinously, Trump’s 28-point “peace” plan last November incorporated everything that Putin/Russia dreamed of extracting from Ukraine, and for good reason: The proposal came from Moscow, passed from Putin’s flunky to Trump’s. That followed Trump’s humiliating summit with Putin last August in Alaska, giving the globally reviled Russian an American stage and pageantry and serving no purpose for the United States, only for Trump the showman. All the while, Russia continued ravaging Ukraine.

So much for Trump’s election promise. He doesn’t stop wars (his repeated claims to the contrary). But he does start them.

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

After months of fretting, California Democratic leaders are now truly freaking out about too many of their own running for governor, potentially allowing two MAGA Republicans to advance to the general election.

Someone find me the world’s smallest violin.

It’s the latest mess created by a party that has held supermajorities in the state Legislature and the governor’s mansion for most of the last 15 years, yet has done little to make life better for its constituents while blaming President Trump for everything.

What does it say about them that no Democratic candidate of color is considered a favorite to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom, when whites are only a third of California’s population? That a party casting itself as the champion of the working poor against Trump’s oligarchic reign isn’t telling a billionaire like Tom Steyer — who spent $341 million of his own money on a failed 2020 presidential run — to bow out and throw his support and moolah behind someone else, just because he’s polling in the top five?

California voters have made the state Republican Party as relevant as the Angels in baseball — yet under Democratic rule, life keeps getting harder for too many. Especially galling is how the state Democratic Party has done next to nothing to help Latinos become household names who can win.

Three Latinos with distinguished resumes — former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and State Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond — are running for governor, yet they stand as much a chance of moving on to the general election as Alfred E. Neuman.

Latinos are a plurality of California’s population and the bedrock of the Democratic Party. Yet there’s a good chance that after November, no Latino will hold a statewide elected position for the first time since 2014.

Yes, Alex Padilla is our senior U.S. senator. But enough California Latino voters became disillusioned with the Democratic platform that Trump made large gains among them in 2024, and Latino GOP legislative candidates stormed Sacramento like never before.

So excuse my schadenfreude upon hearing earlier this week that California Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks wants low-polling candidates to drop out of the governor’s race, claiming in an open letter that their continued presence will “imperil” democracy.

Candidates are definitely choosing — to spite Hicks. We all should. He could have made his move long ago, as the top Democrat in the state. Instead, waiting until just before the candidate filing deadline is more amateur than a Little League game.

Worse, his move reeks of el dedazo, the kingmaking process under Mexico’s long-ruling Partido Revolucionario Institucional that translates as “the finger point,” because that’s how undemocratic it was.

“El dedazo is not appropriate in California,” Becerra told me, referring not to Hicks but to other Democrats who have suggested that he and others withdraw. “And I suspect that very few voters in California think that a variety of choices [for governor] is not a good thing.”

Candidate Xavier Becerra chats in a hallway during the California Democratic Party convention in San Francisco last month.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

As of this columna’s publication, not only has no Democratic candidate dropped out, but most are officially filing papers to jump in. Thurmond even posted a video on social media implying that Hicks’ request is racist because almost all the potential spoilers are people of color, while the top three Democratic hopefuls — Rep. Eric Swalwell, Steyer and former Rep. Katie Porter — are white.

“To me, this act doesn’t reflect the Democratic Party of 2026,” Thurmond thundered. “Aren’t we supposed to be the party who embraces democracy?”

Hicks’ move and the embarrassing aftermath reminds me of Will Rogers’ famous quip that Democrats are members of no organized political party — even if I do understand why Hicks and other Dems are so nervous.

No Democrat is towering over the field, which is why party leaders and activists futilely tried to recruit big names like Padilla and former Vice President Kamala Harris. Those who are running are nice enough. But politically, they’re carbon copies of each other. As a group, they’re as inspiring as printer paper.

The subsequent free-for-all has allowed Republicans Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco to occupy two of the top three slots in the latest Public Policy Institute of California poll alongside Porter, with Swalwell and Steyer close behind.

No other candidate polled higher than 5%, but together, the rest of them added up to 30%. Factor in the 10% of voters who are undecided, and that’s a significant slab of the potential electorate. If just two Democrats drop out, that would almost certainly stop both Hilton and Bianco from advancing.

A Republican governor for California in the Trump era would be embarrassing, terrible and a political self-own without precedent. It would make previous California political earthquakes where conservatives pounced on liberal cluelessness, like Prop. 13, Prop. 187 and the Gray Davis recall, seem as innocuous as a bounce house.

But telling candidates to kill their campaigns to make it easier for people who supposedly have a better chance is the type of least-worst choice that Democratic leaders have forced upon party faithful for too long.

They need a rude awakening. Making them sweat about a gubernatorial primary is a start. That’s why I’m glad Hicks’ plea is going nowhere. If people want to scatter their votes, it’s not only their choice — it’s democracy.

When I asked Becerra if he or his fellow underdog Dems should accept responsibility if a Republican becomes California’s next governor, he brushed off the question.

“That’s more than speculative — it’s not going to happen,” he said, predicting that undecided voters will “crystallize” soon to make the issue moot. He once again joked that there are “too many dedazos in the air.”

Villaraigosa’s answer was more damning: “It would be a collective responsibility that as a party, we failed to convince the electorate.”

Watch out, Rusty — here come your Dems!

Two months after the anniversary of the devastating Southern California firestorms, several legislators at the state Capitol unveiled a package of bills aimed at preventing wildfires and lessening their harms.

“California has reached a tipping point,” Assemblymember Steve Bennett (D-Ventura) said during a news conference Wednesday. “In the last nine years, we’ve had the eight largest fires in the history of California — we shouldn’t have this problem.”

Two of the most destructive wildfires ever in California erupted on the same day last January. The fires devastated Pacific Palisades and Altadena — destroying homes and businesses, displacing residents and killing 31 people. The Palisades and Eaton fires caused an estimated economic loss of $250 billion.

Among the dozen bills announced Wednesday were:

• Assembly Bill 1934, carried by Bennett, would require the state fire marshal’s Wildfire Mitigation Advisory Committee to develop a home hardening certification program. (Home hardening involves using ignition-resistant materials to make houses less vulnerable to embers or flames.)
• Senate Bill 1079, from Sen. Henry Stern (D-Los Angeles), would create a Fire Innovation Unit within the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The unit would serve as a hub for wildfire technology research and deployment.
• Assembly Bill 1699, by Assemblymember Chris Rogers (D-Santa Rosa), would indefinitely extend the Prescribed Fire Liability Program and expand program eligibility.
• Assembly Bill 1891, by Assemblymember Damon Connolly (D-San Rafael), would create the Beneficial Fire Capacity Program to expand training and support for community-led beneficial fire programs, including those developed by universities, volunteer fire districts and California Native American tribes.
• Senate Bill 894, from Sen. Benjamin Allen (D-Santa Monica), would state the intent of the Legislature to create the California Wildfire Resilience Program, which would increase access to home hardening modifications.

Allen, who represents the Palisades, said neighborhoods are being turned upside down by wildfires.

“Modern fires are now spreading from wild lands into urban communities,” he said. “The reality that so many people in my district have been living through over this past year has been immensely challenging. Tens of thousands of families remain displaced from their homes.”

State Sen. Benjamin Allen (D-Santa Monica) hosts a discussion with local leaders and residents to mark 100 days since the start of the L.A. County wildfires at Will Rogers State Beach on April 17, 2025, in Los Angeles.

(Carlin Stiehl/Los Angeles Times)

Many fire survivors have expressed anger over government action that they believe enabled the disaster and hindered recovery efforts. When asked whether the Legislature had plans to dissect the response, Allen said he would support a robust investigation.

“I think the public is expecting that the state is really looking into this,” he said. “But I know there’s always 10 million different priorities around here — one of my jobs as somebody who represents these folks is to make sure it continues to be on the radar screen.”

Bennett said Californians had a right to expect oversight and transparency but should not “expect perfection” during emergencies.

“I think we are best in California if we develop a culture where everybody says, ‘You do the best you can,’” he said. “I think we would be better off.”

Survivors in Altadena and Pacific Palisades recently marked the anniversary of the disaster with solemn memorial services.

“This year has been the hardest year of our lives,” Joy Chen, executive director of the Eaton Fire Survivors Network, said during a service in Altadena. “Unimaginable grief. The 31 people who died that day, and the hundreds who have died prematurely since. Homes lost. Jobs lost. Incomes lost. A sense of safety and identity stripped away.”

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans blocked a war powers resolution Wednesday designed to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities in Iran, as the Trump administration accelerates its military campaign in a conflict that has killed hundreds, including at least six American service members.

The motion failed in a vote of 47-53.

In addition to pulling out military resources from the Middle East, the measure — introduced by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) — would have required Congress’ explicit approval before future engagement with Iran, a power granted to the legislative branch in the Constitution.

The House, where Republicans also hold an advantage, is scheduled to weigh in on a similar measure Thursday. Even if both Democratic-led measures were to succeed, President Trump was widely expected to veto the legislation.

“We are doing very well on the war front, to put it mildly,” President Trump said at a White House event on Wednesday afternoon. The president, who has come under scrutiny for offering shifting explanations on the war’s endgame, said that if he was asked to scale the American military operation from one to 10, he would rate it a 15.

Democrats dispute that Trump possesses the authority to wage the ongoing operation in Iran without explicit congressional approval.

Acknowledging the measure was unlikely to succeed, they framed the vote as a strategy to force lawmakers to put their support for or opposition to the war on record.

“Today every senator — every single one — will pick a side,” Schumer said. “Do you stand with the American people who are exhausted with forever wars in the Middle East, or stand with Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth as they bumble us headfirst into another war?”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and most of his Republican colleagues have maintained that the president carried out a “pre-emptive” and “defensive” strike in Iran, giving him full authority to continue unilateral military operations.

Republicans saw the vote as the “last roadblock” stopping Trump from carrying out his mission against the Islamic Republic.

“I think the president has the authority that he needs to conduct the activities and operations that are currently underway there. There are a lot of controversy and questions around the war powers act, but I think the president is acting in the best interest of the nation and our national security interests,” Thune said at a news conference.

Senators largely held to party loyalties, with the exception of Kentucky Republican Rand Paul, who broke ranks to support the measure, and Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman, who opposed it.

The vote comes as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that the war against Iran is “accelerating,” with American and Israeli forces expanding air operations into Iranian territory. He pointed to evidence released by U.S. Central Command of a submarine strike on an Iranian warship, and also lauded other strikes throughout the region as civilian casualties in Iran surpassed 1,000 on the fourth day of the conflict, according to rights groups.

“We’re going to continue to do well,” Trump said Wednesday. “We have the greatest military in the world by far and that was a tremendous threat to us for many years. Forty-seven years they’ve been killing our people and killing people all over the world, and we have great support.”

Republicans blocked a similar war powers vote in January after the president ordered U.S. special forces to capture and extradite Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in Caracas on drug trafficking charges.

GOP leaders argued that the outcome of that mission equated to a quick success in the Middle East, despite an uncertain timeline from the Department of Defense.

In the House, lawmakers will vote on a separate war powers effort Thursday. That bill is led by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), the two lawmakers who authored the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

“Instead of sending billions overseas, we need to invest in jobs, healthcare, and education here,” Khanna said on X.

In addition to that proposal, moderate Democrats in the House have introduced a separate resolution that would give the administration a 30-day window to justify continued hostilities in the Middle East before requiring a formal declaration of war or authorization from Congress.

Israel, Iran, ICE, dyslexia, single moms and a pet otter named Potter were among the subjects discussed Tuesday evening at California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s tour stop in Los Angeles to promote his new book, “Young Man in a Hurry: A Memoir of Discovery.”

Speaking to a sold-out crowd of around 1,300 at L.A.’s historic Wilshire Ebell Theatre, the hourlong Q&A hosted by Writers Bloc and moderated by “Pod Save America” hosts John Favreau and Tommy Vietor was equal parts a get-to-know-the-man-behind-the-mask chat and a timely discussion about challenges facing the country.

The engaging discussion was clearly geared toward dispelling the image of Newsom as “that slick guy” (his own words), by covering his journey from an insecure, cocky young man trying to impress those around him to an adult who, through his successes and follies, has become comfortable in his own skin.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and moderators Jon Favreau and Tommy Vietor promoting Newsom’s new book, “Young Man in a Hurry.”

(Ronaldo Bolanos / Los Angeles Times)

He described his young, pre-politician self as posing in a suit: “I was thinking I was Pierce Brosnan in ‘Remington Steele.’ I just discovered hair gel,” Newsom joked. He said in those early years he was often overcompensating for his own feelings of inadequacy as the son of a single mom who struggled to pay the rent. As a kid with learning differences, whose undiagnosed dyslexia put him behind in school. Whose “broke and broken” father neglected his family while hobnobbing with wealthy San Francisco families, including the heirs of the Getty oil fortune.

A chatty, relaxed and sometimes free-associating Newsom rarely needed prompting from the moderators when speaking about his childhood, his family’s strange choice of pet (the aforementioned otter) or far more serious matters. He said that Democrats need to “fight fire with fire” and be more “ruthless” in their fight to win back the country.

Newsom’s politician-speak was evident in some of his more rehearsed efforts to convince the crowd that he’s a regular guy (he may not have changed many diapers with his first daughter, but he got better at his dad duties with his next three kids). But those instances were matched by unvarnished comments that appeared genuine, and risked alienating some of his base.

One such instance came early in the conversation, when Newsom was asked about where he stood on President Trump’s new Iran war, and the administration’s changing rationales on why it launched the military operation without consulting Congress.

“[The Trump administration’s] first rationale was we’ve got to make sure that they’re not armed with nuclear [weapons]. But I thought that was resolved, that we had completely ‘obliterated’ it,” Newsom said, using Trump’s claims against him. “Then maybe that wasn’t the case, so now it’s about their missiles, and they can perhaps hit the United States, and then it’s wait, that’s a decade plus away. So that’s BS. Then it’s about their militias, it’s about their proxy. Then it’s no, it’s about their navy. And then no, it’s a response to the likelihood that Israel was going to [go in] so we had to go in ourselves. God help us … this is Keystone Cops.”

Newsom was then asked if the United States should perhaps consider rethinking its military support for Israel, and he said that would be reasonable.

“The issue of Bibi [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] is interesting because he’s got his own domestic issues,” Newsom said. “He’s trying to stay out of jail. He’s got an election coming up. I mean, to say this is in America’s interest, at a time when affordability is at crisis levels, where you had an administration who literally got elected saying this is exactly the opposite of what they would ever consider doing. The fact that we are in this now, regional war.…”

He also said Netanyahu was “potentially on the ropes. He’s got folks, the hard line, that want to annex the West Bank.” Newsom suggested that some critics have “appropriately” described Israel as sort of an “apartheid state.” His comments caused a stir Wednesday from pro-Israel advocates who felt Newsom was turning on their interests.

But most of the conversation was about the book, and domestic issues. Newsom has been a fierce critic of Trump and his policies, positioning himself as part of the resistance, one of the few high-profile leaders to hit back with policy (Proposition 50) and a strong media presence with his podcast, “This is Gavin Newsom,” and his Trump-trolling social media accounts.

“Nothing goes to the heart of who [Donald Trump] is than his press conference yesterday, where he was lamenting [that] four Americans had died,” Newsom said. “He mentioned them in passing. And then went on, in great detail, about the drapes and the Imperial Palace in the East Wing [of the White House] that he’s building. He talked about [it] with real passion and conviction. It says everything about Donald Trump, the uncertainty in the world, to the fact that we have allies under threat, UAE, we’ve got proxy war with, once again, with Hezbollah and Lebanon. We’ve got all the anxiety as relates to 20% of the world’s oil flow, issues related to oil prices and stocks.”

Though Newsom was speaking to an auditorium of blue state supporters, his tour kicked off last week in the South, with stops in Georgia, Tennessee and South Carolina. His efforts to relate to his audience were seized upon when, during a conversation with Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens, he addressed the audience, saying, “I’m like you,” before bringing up his low SAT scores. He was called out for his comment, which was labeled as racist by critics, particularly those from right leaning media outlets.

In Los Angeles on Tuesday, he was asked how he felt about the California Democratic Party chair’s recent suggestion that some party candidates drop out of the governor’s race, to avoid a Republican potentially winning. “I confess. I agree. With all the promise and peril that marks this moment in California, the most un-Trump state in America,” we can’t risk a Republican winning, he said.

The California Highway Patrol and a private security firm deployed officers and agents around the venue for a tight security presence (no bags or purses allowed). On at least three occasions, one or more protesters interrupted the discussion with shouts from the balcony and floor seats, demanding Newsom do something about privatized prisons and the ICE sweeps of immigrants.

After they were removed by security, Newsom said he understood the “escalation of stress” over the last ten years or so, and defended his record, mentioning he signed the first bill banning private prisons and was a “fierce opponent” of what’s happening on American streets.

Attendees of the event applauded Newsom’s record, and just about everything else he said. They were, after all, folks who had paid up to $80 a seat to hear the conversation and receive a copy of his book. He walked into the crowd afterward and spent nearly a half hour chatting with audience members, posing for selfies and signing copies of his memoir. Newsom was not in a hurry.

The head of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power stepped down Wednesday as part of a “planned leadership transition,” Mayor Karen Bass’ office announced.

Janisse Quiñones, who took the helm at DWP in 2024, is returning to Puerto Rico, where she is from, to help modernize the island’s electric grid.

In a statement, Bass said that Quiñones brought “steady leadership and engineering expertise to LADWP.”

“During her tenure, LADWP reinforced electric grid and water system reliability, enhanced coordination during wildfire events, and advanced investments to strengthen resilience amid increasing climate pressures,” the statement said.

Quiñones’ hefty salary of $750,000, which drew attention when she was hired, was meant to be competitive with private utility companies. She previously was a senior vice president of electric operations at Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

Quiñones managed the DWP through the Palisades fire, when a key reservoir was empty as firefighters battled the blaze.

Some argued that the reservoir, which had been drained to repair its cover, led to lower water pressure and hampered the firefight.

The DWP has pushed back, saying the repairs were necessary to protect public health and that even if the reservoir had been full, there still would have been water pressure issues, considering the extraordinary demand on the system during the fire.

A state investigation found that even if the reservoir had been full, the flow rate in the pipes “would have been a limiting factor in maintaining pressure and the system would have been quickly overwhelmed.”

Minnesota’s governor and attorney general on Wednesday defended their efforts to combat fraud and told a U.S. House committee that their efforts have been hampered by President Trump’s immigration crackdown in the state.

Republicans on the House Oversight Committee accused Gov. Tim Walz and Atty. Gen. Keith Ellison of stalling to fight fraud in government programs, saying they put politics ahead of rooting out abuse instead of pausing payments.

“You have not been good stewards of the taxpayer dollars,” said Republican Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, chair of the committee. “And the Democratic position is keep the money flowing. The American taxpayers have had enough.”

Walz said he wanted to work with the federal government to help with fraud investigations, but the immigration surge was making that more difficult.

“The people of Minnesota have been singled out and targeted for political retribution at an unparalleled scale,” Walz said. “We’re going to prosecute, as we have, every single person that’s involved in fraud, but we can’t do it alone.”

Walz and Ellison defended their efforts on fraud, while also trying to turn the focus of the hearing to the surge of 3,000 federal agents in Minnesota that began in December. The Trump administration cited fraud as one justification for its enforcement action. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem testified Tuesday that about 650 investigators remain in Minnesota as part of a broader fraud probe.

“Operation Metro Surge did nothing to address fraud in our state,” Ellison said. “It harmed our economy and it scarred our people and it dealt a devastating blow to fraud enforcement in Minnesota.”

Ellison noted the series of resignations of lawyers in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota, leaving those who remain “drowning in immigration-related petitions” instead of prosecuting fraud. On Tuesday, the U.S. attorney for Minnesota appeared before a judge for a contempt hearing related to Immigration and Customs Enforcement not returning personal property of detainees.

Ellison said his office has “punched above our weight” in winning 300 Medicaid fraud convictions and recovering more than $80 million for taxpayers.

Republican Rep. Clay Higgins of Louisiana called on Ellison to resign, accusing him of not leading investigations into criminal fraud activity.

Last week, Vice President JD Vance said the Trump administration would “temporarily halt” $243 million in Medicaid funding to Minnesota over fraud concerns, as part of what he described as an aggressive crackdown on misuse of public funds. Minnesota sued on Monday to stop the money from being withheld, warning it may have to cut healthcare for low-income families if the money is held back.

Comer on Wednesday accused Walz of not stopping Medicaid payments despite knowledge of fraud because he “didn’t want to rock the boat.”

Comer and other Republicans accused Walz of lying about when he first found out about fraud in a $250-million scheme known as Feeding Our Future and stalling to act in order to protect the Somali American community. Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio asked Walz if he know how many of those who had been indicted were Somali Americans.

“Their ethnicity is not my concern,” Walz said.

Somali Americans make up 82 of the 92 defendants charged so far in the Feeding Our Future case, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Minnesota.

Democratic Rep. Robert Garcia of Long Beach, as part of the effort to focus the hearing on the immigration crackdown, held up images of children detained by federal officers and a picture of the blood-stained car seat of Renee Good who was killed by an officer. Federal officers also killed another Minnesota resident, Alex Pretti, who had been filming enforcement operations.

“This violence does not make us safer,” Garcia said. “It does not address fraud, waste and abuse.”

Bauer writes for the Associated Press.

Gayle King, the most high-profile star at CBS News, has signed a new deal with the network.

A CBS News representative said Wednesday the division reached an agreement with King, 71, to continue as co-host of “CBS Mornings” co-host but did not reveal the length or the terms. Her current deal was set to end in May.

King’s future at the program came into question last fall after the arrival of CBS News Editor-in-chief Bari Weiss. There were leaks to the trades and tabloid press that parent company Paramount was looking to trim King’s salary or reduce her role at the network as a means to cut costs.

“Rumors of my demise were inaccurate and greatly exaggerated,” King said in a statement. “CBS News is my longtime home, and I am committed to our mission. I’m excited about continuing at CBS Mornings. As always, I’m open to new adventures here and ready to go. It took a minute, but we got there. And now that we are here, I am all in.”

King is the highest paid on-air talent at CBS News, earning an annual eight-figure salary.

Known for her effusive charm, King apparently won Weiss over.

“There is only one Gayle King,” Weiss said in a statement. “We’re so proud that she’ll continue to call CBS home. We’re thrilled to have her on in the morning—and equally excited to work with her on new, enterprising projects that bring her talents to new audiences.”

While King is locked in for at least another year, there is a search underway for at least one new co-host on the program.

King’s current co-host is Nate Burleson, who is also an analyst for CBS Sports. The network has not permanently replaced Tony Dokoupil, who left “CBS Mornings” in January to take over as anchor of the “CBS Evening News.”

King joined CBS News in 2012, when she joined “CBS This Morning.” As co-hosts alongside Charlie Rose and Norah O’Donnell, the program experienced five consecutive years of ratings growth.

“CBS This Morning” was adrift after Rose — a major audience draw — was ousted over sexual harassment allegations. In 2021, it was renamed “CBS Mornings,” with King taking a more prominent role.

“CBS Mornings” ranks third in ratings behind NBC’s “Today” and ABC’s “Good Morning America,” but remains a significant revenue generator for CBS News.

AUSTIN, Texas — James Talarico did not mention President Trump when he greeted exuberant supporters at his primary night celebration.

But the newly minted Democratic U.S. Senate nominee in Texas is now a front man for the political opposition to the Republican president, not just in his own state but around the country. With his victory over U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, the state lawmaker from Austin will test whether a smiling message of unity and change is enough to answer voters’ frustrations amid discord at home and now a war abroad.

“We are not just trying to win an election,” Talarico told supporters in the Texas capital early Wednesday. “We are trying to fundamentally change our politics, and it’s working.”

The campaign provided “Love thy Neighbor” signs to people in the crowd.

The question for Talarico as he heads into the general election campaign is whether he can generate enthusiasm from voters who opted for Crockett because they saw her as the more aggressive fighter against Trump. Crockett conceded to Talarico on Wednesday morning, saying that “Texas is primed to turn blue and we must remain united because this is bigger than any one person.”

Talarico will need all the help he can get in a Republican-dominated state where Democrats have gone decades without winning a statewide race. He will face either U.S. Sen. John Cornyn or state Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton, who advanced to a Republican runoff on Tuesday.

Conventional political wisdom has it that Talarico was the stronger Democratic candidate in November, especially if Republicans nominate Paxton, a conservative firebrand who has weathered allegations of corruption and infidelity over the years.

Although Democrats are often choosing between moderate and progressive candidates in primaries, they faced a largely stylistic choice in Texas.

Talarico, 36, is a Presbyterian seminarian who quotes Scripture and rarely raises his voice. Crockett, 44, is an unapologetic political brawler who hammers Trump and other Republicans with acidic flourish.

Both have been reliably progressive votes in their current roles and telegenic faces across cable news and social media. Both represent generational change for a party with aging leadership. Each called for a more equitable economy and society. Each talked about bringing sporadic voters into their coalitions.

But Talarico’s broader argument is one that he could have made regardless of whether Trump was in the White House. Talarico’s campaign, he said often, is about addressing a country whose fundamental divide is not partisan but “top vs. bottom.” He regularly assails the rise in Christian nationalism. A former teacher, he has advocated for public education — and against Texas conservatives’ policies to restrict curriculum and reshape how U.S. history is taught.

“He’s just a good friend and he’s a serious advocate for the disenfranchised and a serious policymaker,” said Lea Downey Gallatin, 40, an Austin resident who became friends with Talarico when they interned together for a congressman.

Crockett promised Democrats that she could increase turnout within the party’s base, while Talarico campaigned on the theory that he could pull new people into the party’s tent.

“I can’t tell you how many have come up to me, whispering that they’re not a Democrat,” Talarico said as he campaigned in San Antonio in the closing days of the primary campaign. “I can’t tell you how many young people have said it’s the first time that they’ve ever voted, and that they are participating for the first time.”

As he strolled through the city, Talarico posed for pictures and greeted the singer of a Tejano band playing nearby. He later spoke to hundreds of people at the historic Stable Hall, a 130-year-old circular structure built for showing horses and now a converted event center. Hundreds more, unable to get into the full event, wound around the corner and along the sidewalk for blocks.

Inside, Lori Alvarez, a 39-year-old who works for a disaster relief nonprofit, said she supported Talarico because “he really listens to what we need.”

“I think he’s going to be able to make change in Washington for us,” said the married mother of three young girls.

Yet that was not what attracted so many voters to Crockett.

Troy Burroughs, a 61-year-old Navy retiree, called Crockett “rugged” and “the only one I see fighting for us.”

He added: “I like how she doesn’t back down from anybody.”

Burroughs said some voters probably saw Talarico as more electable because he is more soft-spoken. But, he said, “We’ve got to get into the gutter with these folks, because that’s where they are.”

Talarico, meanwhile, keeps fighting his own way.

“Tonight, the people of our state gave this country a little bit of hope,” he said Tuesday, “and a little bit of hope is a dangerous thing.”

Barrow, Figueroa and Beaumont write for the Associated Press. Barrow reported from Atlanta, Figueroa from Austin, Texas, and Beaumont from San Antonio.

The U.S. war effort against Iran was “accelerating” as American and Israeli forces fought for control of Iranian airspace and pressed farther inland to seek and destroy Iranian missile capabilities, top U.S. officials said Wednesday.

“Four days in, we have only just begun to fight,” said U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

“The throttle is coming up,” said Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

However, a reported Iranian missile strike at NATO member Turkey — intercepted by NATO defense systems — was not expected to immediately broaden the war theater by triggering a NATO clause requiring other member nations to get involved, Hegseth said.

Hegseth, striking an unapologetic tone, said Iran’s surviving leadership “don’t know what plays to call” after exhausting initial retaliatory strategies devised prior to the U.S. assault, while the U.S. is firing on all fronts and stacking up wins — including an American submarine recently sinking an Iranian warship with a torpedo in international waters, which Hegseth called the first such sinking since World War II.

“We are just getting started. We are accelerating, not decelerating,” he said. “We can sustain this fight easily for as long as we need to.”

Caine, striking a far more measured tone at the Pentagon briefing, spoke of the “sacrifice” of the six U.S. service members who have been killed in the conflict to date and the “clear military objectives” of the operation, which include dismantling “Iran’s ability to project power outside of its borders, both today and into the future.”

And he said the U.S. has made “steady progress” toward those goals in recent hours. He said Iran’s “ballistic missile shots” were down 86% from the first day of fighting, and down 23% “just in the last 24 hours.” He said their “one-way attack drone shots” are down 73% from the “opening days” of the war.

That has allowed the U.S. to establish “localized air superiority across the southern flank of the Iranian coast and penetrate their defenses with overwhelming precision and firepower,” Caine said. “We will now begin to expand inland, striking progressively deeper into Iranian territory and creating additional freedom of maneuver for U.S. forces.”

Hegseth and Caine spoke against a backdrop of escalating destruction across the Persian Gulf region, as Iran — which Hegseth acknowledged is a “formidable” enemy — continued to unleash a wave of retaliatory strikes and Israel pushed into Lebanon and against Iran-allied Hezbollah fighters there.

Their message of U.S. control in the region belied chaos in many parts of it — as sirens blared in Bahrain, U.S. and other foreign citizens scrambled to flee the area, global air traffic was in disarray and tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a key artery for the flow of global energy, was down by about 90%, according to the Associated Press.

Turkey’s defense ministry announced Wednesday that NATO air defenses had shot down a ballistic missile fired toward Turkish airspace from Iran, which raised additional questions about a rapidly expanding footprint of the war given that Turkey is a NATO member and protected by a treaty clause — Article 5 — stating that an attack on one member is an attack on all.

Hegseth said the U.S. was aware of the strike, but that he did not believe it would trigger Article 5 or force all of NATO into the conflict — which has already drawn in nations throughout the Gulf region as Iran has targeted U.S. allies and military facilities.

Hegseth jettisoned any pretense of constraint or measured force by the U.S., instead casting its operations as an all-out assault on “radical Islamist Iranian adversaries” that he suggested both Democrats and the U.S. media were badly misrepresenting to make President Trump look bad.

He suggested the U.S. media was overly focused on losses, such as the deaths of U.S. military personnel, and not nearly focused enough on the progress the U.S. has made toward destroying Iran’s military capabilities in a matter of days.

“They are toast, and they know it — or at least soon enough they will know it,” he said of Iran. “And we’ve only just begun to hunt, dismantle, demoralize, destroy and defeat their capabilities, just four days in.”

He said that the U.S. and Israel in “under a week” will “have complete control of Iranian skies — uncontested air space,” which he said will mean that “we will fly all day, all night, day and night, finding, fixing and finishing the missiles and defense industrial base of the Iranian military, finding and fixing their leaders and their military leaders.”

“Death and destruction from the sky, all day long,” he said. “We’re playing for keeps.”

It was unclear what exactly Hegseth meant by that, given the Trump administration’s constant messaging that the war on Iran will not be another “endless” engagement for the U.S. in the Middle East.

The U.S. was using rules of engagement that are “bold, precise and designed to unleash American power, not shackle it,” Hegseth said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight, and it is not a fair fight. We are punching them while they’re down, which is exactly how it should be.”

Disruptions to tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, and their potential effect on global and U.S. gas prices, were clearly on Trump’s mind. On Tuesday, he posted to his Truth Social platform that the U.S. would be providing wartime insurance for “ALL Maritime Trade” through Gulf shipping lanes — as other insurers began canceling coverage — and that the U.S. Navy would begin escorting tankers if necessary.

“No matter what, the United States will ensure the FREE FLOW of ENERGY to the WORLD,” he wrote.

The message drew immediate concern from some of Trump’s political opponents, who questioned the cost to the U.S. of securing energy shipments for the entire world, including rivals such as China, one of the largest purchasers of crude oil from the region.

“Very few, if any, of these tankers are coming to the United States,” Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) wrote on X. “This certainly looks like the United States will be subsidizing and protecting oil shipments to China.”

In national terms, California is about as indelibly blue as the political process permits, but an unusually comprehensive exit poll of voters in Tuesday’s presidential election confirms that Los Angeles is perhaps the bluest of the blue; it is now more liberal and Democratic than the state as a whole.

The nonpartisan, citywide survey was conducted by Loyola Marymount’s Center for the Study of Los Angeles under the direction of Fernando Guerra, and the results are revealing. While 43% of the nation’s white voters cast ballots for Barack Obama, 76% of L.A.’s white electorate went for the president-elect. Similarly, while the Democratic candidate won 66% of the Latino vote nationally, he carried 77% of L.A. Latinos. The city’s African Americans matched national percentages: Obama got 97% of their vote. He also was the choice of 67% of L.A.’s Asian Americans (nationally, Asian Americans are usually too small a group to get counted effectively in exit polls).

Across the city, 71% of voters told the Loyola pollsters that race was “not at all” important in their decision on which presidential candidate to back, but what’s interesting is that Los Angeles’ white voters emerged from Tuesday’s general election as the most liberal constituency in the city. If you take as your measure the two hot-button statewide propositions on the ballot — parental notification for teenagers seeking abortion and a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage — white voters’ social liberality is strikingly apparent.

Fully 69% of white voters opposed Proposition 4 (parental notification), and 73% voted against Proposition 8 (prohibiting same-sex marriage). Latinos voted for both proposals — 47% to 39% for parental notification and 48% to 42% to prohibit same-sex marriage. (When totals don’t add up to 100%, it’s because not all those questioned voted or revealed their votes on every issue to the pollsters.) Blacks and Asians split their vote on the social issues: A 45% plurality of African Americans opposed parental notification; 57% supported the ban on same-sex marriage. Asian Americans went the other way: 57% were against banning gay marriage, while a 42% plurality supported parental notification.

Geographically, the Loyola poll overturned the longtime local political assumption that the San Fernando Valley is generally more conservative than the city south of the Santa Monica Mountains: 72% of Valley voters went for Obama, as opposed to 78% of the rest of the city’s electorate. Similarly, a solid majority of Valley voters opposed parental notification (57%, which was higher than the city as a whole, at 51%) and a stunning 63% of Valley ballots were cast against the same-sex marriage ban. The rest of the city opposed the measure 54% to 31%.

All four of the city’s largest ethnic groups — whites, Latinos, blacks and Asians — are more liberal and more heavily Democratic than their counterparts statewide. Looking at same-sex marriage, for example, Loyola’s Guerra pointed out that 70% of blacks statewide opposed Proposition 8, compared to L.A.’s 57%.

So, with a mayoral election just over the horizon, what do these new realities suggest about the future of politics in Los Angeles? As Guerra said, it will be “much, much tougher for a Riordan-type Republican candidate to win the mayor’s office, somebody like Rick Caruso,” the billionaire shopping mall developer who announced Friday that he wouldn’t be running.

—

While the old divisions between Valley voters and the rest of the city have been swept away, Guerra says that some of the center’s other work suggests that pockets of traditional conservatism remain. Some districts north of the Santa Monicas may continue to elect relatively more conservative City Council members while voting with the rest of the city’s liberal majority on national, state and even citywide issues.

Other research by the Loyola-based center has verified a trend that may be increasingly decisive in local politics: Latinos’ overwhelmingly pro-union sentiment. Latino voters are virtually across-the-board supporters of organized labor and its agenda. In part, that’s because the region’s resurgent unions are essentially a Latino movement, which is one of the reasons labor here has championed immigrants’ rights so strongly. The loyalty is reciprocal; one of the significant things Guerra and his colleagues have discovered is that Latinos support organized labor whether or not anybody in the family pays union dues. In fact, nonunion Latino households are more likely to endorse labor’s agenda at the polls than white union members.

“To win in the future,” Guerra said Friday, “citywide candidates will need to put together a coalition of liberal whites, Latinos and unions. Tap them, and you’ve got an unbeatable combination.”

You’ve also got a very different Los Angeles.

Traditionally, officeholders here have been elected by one city to govern another. That is, the electors have been older, whiter, more conservative and more affluent than the majority of Angeleos; they have had interests — and they expected the officials they chose to serve them. Those who have been governed mostly have been younger, browner, blacker and far poorer than the electors; they have had — and they continue to have — needs, which sometimes have been met and, too often, haven’t.

The disconnect between the traditional electors’ interests and the civic majority’s needs is the source of much of our civic dysfunction. When the overwhelming majority of this new Los Angeles told the Loyola pollsters that they voted for the presidential candidate they felt would “bring change,” they may have had more than the White House in mind.

—

timothy.rutten@latimes.com

The judge was perplexed.

“Why were state law enforcement officers excluded?” U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder wanted to know.

The judge pressed California Deputy Atty. Gen. Cameron Bell to explain the thinking behind a pair of trailblazing new laws meant to unmask the federal immigration agents patrolling Golden State streets and compel them to identify themselves.

One of the laws required all law enforcement operating in the state to visibly display identification while on duty, with narrow exclusions for plainclothes, undercover and SWAT details. It applied to everyone else, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.

But the other law, a ban on masks worn by on-duty law enforcement officers, applied only to local cops and federal agents, with a broad exemption for the California Highway Patrol and other state peace officers.

Snyder wanted to know: Why were the laws different?

She never got an answer. Bell said she couldn’t comment on the actions of the Legislature.

State Sen. Scott Wiener attends the California Democratic Party convention in San Francisco in February.

(Jeff Chiu / Associated Press)

In the halls of the statehouse last year, Sen. Scott Wiener’s (D-San Francisco) No Secret Police Act and Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez’s (D-Alhambra) No Vigilantes Act were referred to as “legislative twins,” a nod to their shared gestation and conjoined legal fate. If passed, both would immediately be challenged by the Trump administration.

That’s precisely what happened. Both measures became law — but only the ID law survived its first court battle, sending state legislators back to the drawing board on the mask ban.

Polls show unmasking ICE is overwhelmingly popular with voters, and both Wiener and Gov. Gavin Newsom took credit for getting the bill passed.

But behind the scenes, according to nearly two dozen sources familiar with the legislative process who spoke to The Times, a fight had been brewing between the two Democrats.

Days before the amendment deadline last summer, Newsom’s office proposed changes to Wiener’s mask ban that, according to legal experts and opponents, would have exempted most ICE and Customs and Border Protection operations from the bill. The governor’s team denies that was the intent of their proposal. The resulting compromise exempted state peace officers from the law instead.

Snyder struck it down on Feb. 9, writing that she was “constrained” to do so because the exemption of state police “unlawfully discriminates against federal officers.”

Interviews with more than 20 lawmakers, policy advisors, law enforcement and legal experts show how the Labor Day weekend deal came together, ensuring both Wiener and the governor a political victory that in short order became a court triumph for the president.

There are now more than a dozen similar bills winding through statehouses from Olympia, Wash., to Albany, N.Y., as legislators try to rein in a practice the majority of Americans see as dangerous and corrosive. In Sacramento, similar efforts are underway to pass a narrower version of the law, and both Newsom and Wiener have said they were proud to make California the first state to pass an ICE mask ban.

Both sides said the legislative process is messy, and that eleventh-hour amendment fights are inevitable in a statehouse where more than 900 bills were passed and close to 800 signed into law last year.

Yet neither the governor’s office nor the legislator’s team has offered clear answers for why both accepted a last-minute change on a nationally watched bill that each was informed could kneecap the law’s constitutional standing in court.

“Seeing the carve-out, I was immediately really surprised,” said Bridget Lavender, staff attorney at the State Democracy Research Initiative, the nation’s leading expert on the myriad legal efforts to unmask ICE across the U.S. “That’s ultimately what doomed it.”

Others were more blunt.

“When I saw the final bill I said, ‘What happened here?’” said one prominent constitutional scholar, who asked not to be identified because they were advising several other state legislatures on similar mask ban efforts. “I can’t believe this happened.”

Legally, the mask ban was always going to be a cat fight. Law enforcement groups loathed it. Constitutional scholars were wary. The Justice Department contends both the mask ban and the ID law illegally interfere with the operation of the federal government, a violation of the Constitution’s supremacy clause, while California likens them to highway speed limits, which apply to everyone equally.

“There is a very strong argument that the law is constitutional so long as it applies to all law enforcement,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berekely Law School and an early champion of the original No Secret Police Act, known in Sacramento as SB 627.

Others saw it differently.

“It’s a very complicated question as to whether states can enact law enforcement policies that bind the federal government,” said Eric J. Segall, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law. “The answer [here] is probably not. I regret that’s the law, but I’m pretty sure that’s the law.”

Everyone agreed, the Golden State would set the precedent.

“All eyes were really on California,” Lavender said.

Judge Snyder agreed with the state, upholding the ID law. Judges for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sharply questioned both the federal government and California in a hearing Tuesday, repeatedly emphasizing the lack of clear precedent and constitutional uncertainty of the law.

“California has done something that we just haven’t seen before,” said Judge Jacqueline Nguyen.

Most scholars believe it will ultimately be settled by the Supreme Court.

The mask ban would be on the same track now, if not for the state police exemption.

“We knew we really had to thread that needle very carefully,” said state Sen. Patricia Fahy of New York, whose mask ban bill could soon be fast-tracked in Albany. “You had to put all law enforcement in it. I say that as a non-lawyer, but I knew that.”

Wiener knew it too. A Harvard-trained lawyer and a former deputy city attorney for San Francisco, he’d rebuffed early requests to exempt state and local officers from the bill and circulated Chemerinsky’s July 23 op-ed in the Sacramento Bee explaining the necessity of a universal ban, including to the governor’s team.

The state’s powerful law enforcement unions were livid. They railed against the bill in public and in the Legislature, testifying relentlessly about the harm that would flow to them from a ban — including being required to enforce it against armed federal agents.

“The last thing you want is two people with firearms on their hips getting into an argument,” said Marshall McClain, a regional director in the Peace Officers Research Assn. of California, among the state’s richest and most powerful lobbying groups.

Law enforcement objections shaped the changes the governor’s legislative office sought just days before the Sept. 5 amendment deadline, according to a stakeholder involved in those discussions.

Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a news conference in Los Angeles in 2024.

(Eric Thayer / Associated Press)

The most controversial ask from Newsom’s team was an exemption for all types of officers engaged in “warrant and arrest related operations” — precisely the type of enforcement Alex Pretti was filming when masked CBP agents tackled him to the ground and shot him to death in Minneapolis last month.

The governor’s office also sought an exemption for all officers engaged in “crowd management, intervention, and control” — the work ICE agent Jonathan Ross was doing when he shot and killed Renee Good less than three weeks earlier.

“We were working to ensure state officer safety and operational effectiveness, not exempt ICE,” said Diana Crofts-Pelayo, Newsom’s chief deputy director of communications.

Yet California Deputy Solicitor Gen. Mica Moore told the 9th Circuit on Tuesday that the state’s ID law only applies to officers engaged in “arrest or detention operations or … crowd control” — activities she characterized as central to its purpose.

Rather than swallow bad terms or risk Newsom’s veto, Wiener countered with the state police carve-out — a move constitutional experts advised him would leave the law at least some chance of survival.

The governor’s legislative team quickly accepted, leaving Bell and the attorney general’s office on the hook to defend the exemption.

Boosters argue that even with its fatal flaw, California’s law advanced such bans nationally in a pivotal moment last September.

“The politics have changed dramatically,” said Hector Villagra, vice president of policy advocacy for MALDEF, one of the mask ban’s sponsors. “[Today] people realize this is not normal in a democracy like ours.”

Los Angeles cannabis businesses that owe back taxes wouldn’t have to pay late fees and interest under an “amnesty” program proposed by the City Council.

To qualify, the businesses would have to pay their city taxes within three years.

The council’s unanimous vote on Tuesday, asking the Office of Finance to draft language creating the program, comes at a time when city leaders are searching for money to cover basic services after closing a $1-billion budget gap.

More than 500 of the roughly 700 licensed cannabis businesses in the city collectively owed about $400 million in taxes — an amount that includes $100 million in penalties and $35 million in interest, according to an October report from the Office of Finance.

The total amount owed increased to $417 million as of December, according to Matthew Crawford, the office’s assistant director.

But only about $150 million is collectible, since some tax debts are outside of the three-year statute of limitations and some cannabis businesses are no longer operating.

Based on a projection that about half of eligible cannabis businesses would take part in the program, the city would collect about $30 million in back taxes while waiving about $25 million in penalties, the October report said.

Under the amnesty program, about 20% of the revenue would go to the city’s general fund and the Office of Finance. The Los Angeles Police Department and the city attorney’s office would receive about 40% for illegal cannabis enforcement, and the remaining 40% would fund social equity grants to cannabis operators, particularly members of low-income and minority communities that have been subject to disparate enforcement of criminal cannabis laws.

“The city finds itself with a unique opportunity to bring businesses into compliance and, at the same time, properly fund cannabis industry-centric programming,” City Councilmember Imelda Padilla said during Tuesday’s meeting.

Owners of cannabis businesses say the 10% city tax rate on their gross sales is exorbitant, at the same time that illegal cannabis businesses have carved out a chunk of the market.

“Not only are we competing against the illicit market, we’re competing against licensed dispensaries that the city is allowing to stay open who have made it their business model to not pay tax,” Daniel Sosa, who owns four cannabis dispensaries in the city, told the council on Tuesday.

The amnesty program should be mandatory for businesses that are behind on their taxes, and those who default on their payments should have their licenses stripped, Sosa said.

Sosa said that the tax on cannabis sales should be “just like every other business pays in the city: guns, tobacco, alcohol, major, major billion dollar corporations.”

Other business tax rates in the city range from 0.11% to 0.425%, according to Crawford.

Last month, the council placed a cannabis-related measure on the June 2 ballot that, if approved by voters, would close a tax loophole for illegal cannabis businesses and open them up to the threat of civil collection.

WASHINGTON — The United States plunged further into conflict with Iran on Tuesday as a new round of strikes heightened fears of an expanding war in the Middle East, sending markets reeling and oil prices soaring and drawing urgent calls from European leaders for a plan forward.

President Trump acknowledged during an Oval Office appearance that the public would feel some economic pain as fighting continues to threaten areas that are critical to the world’s oil and natural gas production.

“As soon as this ends, those prices are going to drop, I believe lower than ever before,” Trump said, though he did not provide a clear time frame for when the conflict might end.

As the war stretched into its fourth day on Tuesday, Israel struck Iranian missile launch facilities and weapon factories and Iran retaliated across the Persian Gulf region, including attacks on U.S. diplomatic sites in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Dubai.

The conflict simultaneously set off alarms in the global markets, prompting stocks in Europe and Asia to plunge and the S&P 500 to drop nearly 1% after falling as much as 2.5% in early trading.

European governments were also forced to contend with the fallout, with some countries increasing their military presence in the region as their actions are closely monitored by Trump, who publicly singled out countries that he thought had been helpful in his war efforts so far.

“Spain has been terrible,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office while threatening to “cut off all trade with Spain” after he said the country had denied American forces access to its military bases.

Trump said he was “not happy with the U.K. either” and complained about not being allowed to use a military base on Diego Garcia in the Chagos Islands. Without access to that military base, Trump said American planes were forced to fly “many extra hours.”

“We were very surprised. This is not Winston Churchill that we’re dealing with,” Trump said. Churchill served as Britain’s prime minister during World War II.

As Trump threatened European allies, he sat next to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, underscoring the fraught landscape that world leaders are navigating as American and Israeli forces work to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities and nuclear program and eye a potential change in government.

During their meeting, Trump said Germany has allowed the United States to use its air bases. Beyond that help, Trump said, “we’re not asking them to put boots on the ground or anything.”

When asked by reporters how Germany intended to help in the conflict, Merz said he wanted to focus on talking to Trump about what comes “the day after” the war ends.

“We are on the same page in terms of getting this terrible regime in Iran away and we will talk about the day after, what will happen then, if they are out,” Merz said.

Trump talks about regime change options

Trump did not have much to say yet on what will come next and was unclear on who will lead the Iranian government, saying that U.S. and Israeli military operations had killed the people who he thought could have filled the leadership vacuum.

“Most of the people we had in mind are dead,” Trump said. “Now, we have another group, but they may be dead also based on reports so I guess you have a third wave coming in and pretty soon we’re not going to know anybody.”

His remarks were a startling acknowledgment in part because minutes earlier he said the worst-case scenario in his mind was that the military operation would take place and “then somebody takes over who is as bad as the previous person.”

“That could happen,” Trump said.

Asked if Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, son of the former shah, is someone he would like to run the country, Trump said he is a “very nice person,” but did not say for sure whether he is his choice.

The president and his top aides have offered varying explanations when asked about regime change, drawing criticism from Democrats and some conservatives who are demanding to know why Americans are being dragged into a war with no clear end in sight.

On Saturday, when U.S. and Israeli forces first struck Iran, Trump said overthrowing Iran’s theocratic regime was part of his rationale. But on Monday, he emphasized that Iran’s missiles posed a threat to the United States, and therefore theattack was carried out to eradicate its missile capability and nuclear program.

After briefing lawmakers Monday afternoon, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters that the United States launched a “preemptive” attack on Iran because officials knew Israel was going to strike the country — a move that he said would have put U.S. forces at risk and led to even more U.S. casualties. As of Tuesday, six American troops have been killed in combat.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), after being briefed by Trump administration officials on Monday afternoon, said, “Israel was determined to act in their own defense, with or without American support.”

“If Israel fired upon Iran, and took action against Iran to take out the missiles, then they would have immediately retaliated against U.S. personnel and assets,” Johnson told reporters.

Trump disputed the suggestion that Israel’s plans to attack Iran prompted him to launch the strikes, saying it was the other way around.

“If anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand,” Trump said Tuesday. “But Israel was ready, and we were ready, and we’ve had a very, very powerful impact because virtually everything they have has been knocked out.”

But it was unclear how far along the U.S. military is in accomplishing its mission.

In a letter Monday, Trump told Congress that while the “United States desires a quick and enduring peace, it is not possible at this time to know the full scope and duration of military operations that may be necessary.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) warned in a speech on the Senate floor that the administration’s murky strategy is not good for the country.

“History teaches us a simple lesson: Wars without a clear objective do not stay small. They get bigger, they get bloodier, they get longer, they get more expensive,” Schumer said. “This is not a defensive war. This is not a necessary war. This is a war of choice.”

The latest attacks on the region

Tuesday saw yet another expansion of the war when Israeli troops blitzed into Lebanon in a bid to dislodge the Iran-backed Shiite militant group Hezbollah.

The ground invasion comes one day after Hezbollah lobbed rockets and drones at an Israeli military position across the border; an attack, the group said, that was vengeance for the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and a response to Israel’s near-daily violations of a ceasefire brokered by the U.S. in November 2024.

The attack sparked a massive Israeli assault on dozens of villages and towns in southern Lebanon, as well as on the southern suburbs of the Lebanese capital, Beirut. The strikes killed 40 people, wounded 246 others and saw tens of thousands forced to leave their homes and scramble for shelter in Beirut and elsewhere, according to Lebanese authorities.

The Lebanese army said Tuesday that it was withdrawing from positions in southern Lebanon ahead of a ground incursion by Israeli troops. The Israeli military’s Arabic-language spokesman then issued a warning to residents of some 80 towns and villages in that region to “immediately evacuate your homes” and move northward.

Hezbollah, meanwhile, maintained a defiant stance and continued rocket and drone launches into Israel.

“The era of patience has ended, and we have no option but to return to resistance,” said Mahmoud Qatari, who chairs Hezbollah’s Political Council. “If Israel wants an open war, so be it.”

The invasion comes more than a year after Israel occupied parts of southern Lebanon in 2024. After the ceasefire came into effect, Israel withdrew from most parts of the country save for five positions near the border. Yet in the 15 months since the ceasefire was signed, it has proved to be more notional for Lebanon, with Israeli warplanes and troops conducting well over 10,000 truce violations, according to the U.N.

Israel says its actions are to stop Hezbollah from reconstituting itself near the border, but the result has meant residents of border towns and villages in southern Lebanon have been unable to return home.

Israel’s military spokesman, Brigadier Gen. Effie Defrin, said in a statement that troops were “creating a buffer” inside Lebanon between residents in northern Israel “and any threat.”

As the conflict has escalated, some 1,600 Americans stranded across the region have requested assistance and the Trump administration is trying to help evacuate them, Rubio said. But the effort has faced challenges because Iranian missiles have struck many Mideast airports.

“We know we are going to be able to help them,” Rubio said. “It is going to take a little time because we do not control the airspace closures.”

Ceballos reported from Washington, Bulos from Khartoum, Sudan.

WASHINGTON — Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem arrived at a Senate oversight hearing Tuesday ready to spar with Democrats in her first Capitol Hill appearance since federal agents fatally shot U.S. citizens Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minneapolis.

But some of the sharpest comments from the Judiciary Committee came from fellow Republicans, who questioned her leadership, criticized her spending practices and called on her to admit that she was wrong to call Pretti and Good “domestic terrorists.”

“What we’ve seen is a disaster under your leadership, Ms. Noem, a disaster,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said. “The fact is you can’t even admit to a mistake. It looks like an investigation is going to prove that Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti probably should not have been shot in the face and in the back.”

Tillis hardly questioned Noem on specifics, choosing instead to deliver a blistering, high-volume “performance evaluation,” of the Homeland Security secretary. He accused Noem and Trump advisor Stephen Miller of prioritizing deportation quotas instead of investigating the “vicious” ICE agents involved in the Minnesota shootings.

“We’re not going after the people who did that damage at the expense of running numbers that Stephen Miller wants out of the White House,” he said. “We just want numbers. We want 1,000 a day, 6,000 a day, 9,000 a day. Because numbers matter, right? No, they don’t matter. Quality matters.”

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) also brought up Pretti and Good: “Did you determine whether there was any basis for the sensational claim, a claim that proved to be utterly false, that these two victims were engaged in domestic terrorism?” he asked.

Noem used the hearing to defend a series of decisions now under bipartisan scrutiny. She said Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers face “serious and escalating threats” due to what she called “deliberate mischaracterizations” of their work.

She called the Minneapolis deaths “tragic situations,” and said the phrase “domestic terrorists” was based on early information she received from the agents from the city. “It was a chaotic scene,” Noem said. She did not apologize for using the phrase or say it was inaccurate.

Noem stood behind President Trump’s mass deportation agenda and said ICE is focusing on the “worst of the worst.” Recent reporting by the Cato Institute found that just 5% of ICE detainees have been convicted of violent offenses, and three-fourths have no criminal convictions at all.

The hearing came amid a partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security, triggered last month when Senate Democrats blocked funding in a standoff over immigration enforcement practices. As tensions mount in Iran, lawmakers are increasingly concerned about the security risks of leaving the department unfunded.

In her opening statement, Noem decried the shutdown as “reckless” and “unnecessary,” and accused Democrats of putting U.S. security posture at risk.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) pointedly asked about a $200-million ad campaign promoting immigration enforcement — a campaign that features Noem and was awarded to a firm led by a friend. Such spending “troubles me,” he said, adding, “I just can’t agree with that, Madam Secretary. My research shows you did not bid this out.”

Noem maintained that Trump directed the messaging strategy and argued it has been “extremely effective” in deterring illegal immigration. She said she “didn’t have anything to do with picking those contractors.”

The back-and-forth became increasingly heated as Kennedy also peppered Noem for characterizing Good and Pretti as domestic terrorists.

“What got my attention was that you blamed those statements on Mr. Stephen Miller,” Kennedy said, referencing an Axios report quoting Noem.

She dodged the line of questioning, saying the sources Axios used in the report were “anonymous,” and, by her logic, not credible.

“This wasn’t anonymous. It was you,” Kennedy said. “They’re quoting you on the record saying it was Stephen.”

On numerous occasions throughout the hearing, the secretary was asked about her purchase of two luxury Gulfstream G700 jets at a combined cost of $200 million in taxpayer funds.

Reportedly designed by New York designer Peter Marino, the planes include private bedroom suites with queen-size beds, bathrooms with stand-up showers and electric bidets, and a lounge with a wet bar and wine chiller, according to images obtained by NBC.

Noem argued the purchases were authorized by Congress for executive travel and deportation operations.

In another testy exchange, Delaware Sen. Chris Coons pressed Noem over recent statements that she planned to station ICE officers at polling locations in November, to “make sure we have the right people voting, electing the right leaders.” She said her department had no such plan in place but fell short of committing to ruling it out.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) endorsed investigations into ICE shootings, though his statements were largely designed to cast Noem in a favorable light.

“I’d like to make sure if there was a bad shooting as documented as such, and people pay a price. But I will not apologize to anybody in this room to try to clean up the mess that Biden started, and you empowered,” he said.

Democrats, meanwhile, accused Noem of presiding over “thuggish” and “illegal” enforcement tactics and demanded independent investigations into several incidents throughout the U.S.

Accusing Noem of routinely making false statements about ICE shooting victims while impeding state, local, and independent investigations, Schiff cited an episode in which immigration agents shot U.S. citizen and Chicago resident Marimar Martinez. In November, a federal judge raised concerns that agents mishandled or destroyed key physical evidence in the case.

“Our internal investigations are following the same policies as they always have,” Noem responded.

“Will you take some responsibility?” Schiff said. “How is the public supposed to believe anything your agency says or finds?”

Over 180 lawmakers have co-sponsored articles of impeachment against Noem. Tillis and Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski last month called for Noem to resign or face impeachment by Congress.

On Tuesday, Tillis said her responses to the committee amounted to stonewalling. “That’s a failure of leadership, and that is why I’ve called for your resignation,” he said.