Politics Desk

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s White House ballroom won final approval from a key agency on Thursday, days after a federal judge ordered a halt to construction unless Congress allows what would be the biggest structural change to the American landmark in more than 70 years.

The National Capital Planning Commission, the agency tasked with approving construction on federal property in the Washington region, went ahead with the vote because U.S. District Judge Richard Leon’s ruling on Tuesday affects construction activities, not the planning process, commission spokesperson Stephen Staudigl said.

But despite the agency’s approval, the judge’s ruling and the legal fight over the ballroom could stall progress on a legacy project that Trump is racing to see completed before the end of his term in early 2029. It’s among a series of changes the Republican president is planning for the nation’s capital to leave his lasting imprint while he’s still in office.

The vote by the 12-person commission, including three members appointed by Trump, had initially been scheduled for March but was pushed to Thursday because so many people signed up to comment on it at the commission’s meeting. The comments were overwhelmingly opposed to the ballroom.

Trump tweaks the ballroom design

Before voting Thursday, the commission considered some design changes to the 90,000-square-foot ballroom addition that Trump announced aboard Air Force One on Sunday as he flew back to Washington from a weekend at his Florida home.

He removed a large staircase on the south side of the building and added an uncovered porch to the west side. Architects and other critics of the project had panned the staircase as too large and basically useless since there was no way to enter the ballroom at the top.

Trump gave no reason for the changes, but a White House official said the president had considered comments from the National Capital Planning Commission and another oversight entity, the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, which approved the project earlier this year, as well as members of the public.

The official, who was not authorized to publicly discuss the ballroom design and spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that additional “refinements” had been made to the building’s exterior and that lead architect Shalom Baranes would present them on Thursday.

The ballroom, now estimated to cost $400 million, has expanded in scope and price tag since Trump first announced the project last summer, citing a need for space other than a tent on the lawn to host important guests. Trump demolished the East Wing in October with little warning, and site preparation and underground work have been underway since then. Officials said above-ground construction would not start until April, at the earliest.

Judge says Trump isn’t the owner of the White House

The National Capital Planning Commission is chaired by Will Scharf, a top White House aide who has spoken in support of the ballroom addition. The president appoints three of the members, and Trump named two other White House officials along with Scharf.

Trump went ahead with the project before seeking input from the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts, which he reconstituted with allies and supporters.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation, a private nonprofit organization, sued after Trump demolished the East Wing last fall to build the ballroom addition — a space nearly twice as big as the mansion itself. Trump says it will be paid for with donations from wealthy people and corporations, including him, though public dollars are paying for underground bunkers and security upgrades on the White House grounds.

The trust sought a temporary halt to construction until Trump presented the project to both commissions and Congress for approval. Leon, the judge, agreed but said that his order would take effect in two weeks and that construction related to security would be allowed.

That work continued Wednesday as new photos by the Associated Press show the site of the former East Wing bustling with activity as cranes stretched toward the sky.

The judge, who was nominated to the bench by Republican President George W. Bush, wrote in his ruling: “The President of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families. He is not, however, the owner!” He concluded that the National Trust for Historic Preservation was likely to succeed on the merits of its claims because “no statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have.”

Trump disputed that Congress must also approve his project.

“We built many things at the White House over the years. They don’t get congressional approval,” he told reporters in the Oval Office after the ruling.

Representatives for the House and Senate committees with jurisdiction over the project did not return telephone messages seeking comment. Congress is on spring break.

Superville writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump has privately discussed the possibility of firing Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi and replacing her with Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, three people familiar with the matter told the Associated Press on Thursday.

In those conversations, Trump has discussed his ongoing frustration with Bondi over her handing of the Jeffrey Epstein files and hurdles the Justice Department has encountered in investigations into Trump’s perceived enemies, the people said. The Republican president has mentioned other candidates but has raised Zeldin’s name as recently as this week, the people said.

The people were not authorized to publicly discuss the private conversations and spoke to the AP on the condition of anonymity.

No decision has been announced, and Trump has been known to change his mind on personnel decisions.

“Attorney General Pam Bondi is a wonderful person and she is doing a good job,” Trump said in a statement produced by the White House.

Zeldin, a former Republican congressman from New York, has been publicly and privately praised by Trump, who at an event in February described him as “our secret weapon.”

Bondi, a former state attorney general in Florida and a Trump loyalist who was part of his legal team during his first impeachment case, has been in her position for more than a year. She came into office pledging that she would not play politics with the Justice Department, but she quickly started investigations of Trump foes, sparking an outcry that the law enforcement agency was being wielded as a tool of revenge to advance the president’s political and personal agenda.

She has also endured months of scrutiny over the Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein files that made her the target of angry conservatives even with her close relationship with Trump.

Under Bondi’s leadership, the department opened investigations into a string of Trump foes, including Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James, former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan.

The high-profile prosecutions of Comey and James were quickly thrown out by a judge who ruled that the prosecutor who brought the cases was illegally appointed. Other politically charged investigations have either been rejected by grand juries or failed to result in criminal charges.

Richer, Tucker, Balsamo and Price write for the Associated Press.

LONDON — President Trump and his Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have been damning of the U.K.’s naval capabilities. Their jibes may have stung in a country with a long and proud maritime history, but they do carry some substance.

The U.K. has been at the forefront of Trump’s ire since the onset of the Iran war on Feb. 28, when British Prime Minister Keir Starmer refused to grant the U.S. military access to British bases.

Though that decision has been partly reversed with the decision to permit the U.S. to use the bases, including that of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, for so-called defensive purposes, Trump is adamant he was let down.

He has repeatedly lashed out at Starmer and branded the Royal Navy’s two new aircraft carriers as “toys.”

“You don’t even have a navy,” he told Britain’s Daily Telegraph in comments published Wednesday. “You’re too old and had aircraft carriers that didn’t work.”

The HMS Queen Elizabeth and the HMS Prince of Wales are the largest and most powerful vessels ever constructed for the Royal Navy, though smaller and less capable than the U.S. Navy’s main fleet carriers. However, they are widely considered to be highly capable, especially for coalition warfare, despite some technical issues that have afflicted them in their first years of service.

Hegseth, meanwhile, said sarcastically that the “big, bad Royal Navy” should get involved in making the Strait of Hormuz safe for commercial shipping.

For numerous reasons, the Royal Navy is not as big and bad as it used it to be when Britannia ruled the waves. But it’s not as feeble as Trump and Hegseth imply and is largely similar with the French navy, with which it is often compared.

“On the negative side, there is a grain of truth, with the Royal Navy being smaller than it has been in hundreds of years,” said Professor Kevin Rowlands, editor of the Royal United Services Institute Journal. “On the positive side, the Royal Navy would say that it’s entering its first period of growth since World War II, with more ships set to be built than in decades.”

Capabilities and preparedness

It’s not that long ago that Britain could muster a task force of 127 ships, including two aircraft carriers, to sail to the south Atlantic after Argentina’s invasion of the Falkland Islands, a British overseas territory. That 1982 campaign, which then-U. S. President Reagan was lukewarm about, marked the final hurrah of Britain’s naval pedigree.

Nothing on that scale, or even remotely, could be accomplished now. Since World War II, Britain’s combat-ready fleet has declined substantially, much of it linked to changing military and technological advances and the end of empire. But not all.

The number of vessels in the Royal Navy fleet, including aircraft carriers, destroyers frigates and submarines has fallen from 166 in 1975 to 66 in 2025, according to the Associated Press’ analysis of figures from the Ministry of Defense and the House of Commons Library.

Though the Royal Navy has two aircraft carriers at its command, there was a seven-year period in the 2010s when it had none. And the number of destroyers has halved to six while the frigate fleet has been slashed from 60 to just 11.

Diminished state

The Royal Navy faced criticism for the time it took to send the HMS Dragon destroyer to the Middle East after the war with Iran broke out. Though naval officials worked night and day to get it shipshape for a different mission than the one it was readying for, to many it symbolized the extent to which Britain’s military has been gutted since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

For much of the Cold War, Britain was spending between 4% and 8% of its annual national income on its military. After the Cold War, that proportion steadily dropped to a low of 1.9% of GDP in 2018, fuel to Trump’s fire.

Like other countries, Britain, largely under the Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, sought to use the so-called “peace dividend” following the collapse of the Soviet Union to divert money earmarked for defense to other priorities, such as health and education.

And the austerity measures imposed by the Conservative-led government in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2008-09 prevented any pickup in defense spending despite the clear signs of a resurgent Russia, especially after its annexation of Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine.

No quick fix

In the wake of Russia’s full-blown invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and with another Middle East war underway, there’s a growing understanding across the political divide that the cuts have gone too far.

Following the Ukraine invasion, the Conservatives started to turn the military spending tide around. Since the Labour Party returned to power in 2024, Starmer is seeking to ramp up British defense spending, partly at the cost of cutting the country’s long-vaunted aid spending.

Starmer has promised to raise U.K. defense spending to 2.5% of gross domestic product by 2027, and the updated goal is now for it to rise to 3.5% of GDP by 2035, as part of a NATO agreement pushed by Trump. That, in plain terms, will mean tens of billions pounds more being spent — a lot more equipment for the armed forces.

The pressure is on for the government to speed that schedule up. But with the public finances further imperiled by the economic consequences of the Iran war, it’s not clear where any additional money will come.

The jibes will likely keep coming even though the critiques are unfair and far from the truth, said RUSI’s Rowlands, who was a captain in the Royal Navy.

“We are dealing with an administration that doesn’t do nuance,” he said.

Pylas writes for the Associated Press.

When I cracked open retired firefighter Bruce Hensler’s 15-year-old book, Crucible of Fire, I felt I had found an oracle.

Before 15 out of California’s 20 most destructive fires on record, Hensler described large chunks of cities burning to the ground, insurance companies jacking up premiums after realizing they wildly underestimated the risk and politicians failing to enforce the few fire safety rules on the books.

He even describes the fire chief of a decimated city criticizing city its politicians for failing to properly prepare for such a disaster, resulting in the city ousting the chief. (Sound familiar, Palisadians?)

Yet Hensler wasn’t trying to predict what would unfold in California’s wildland-urban interface in the 21st century. He was simply telling the story of the late 1800s and early 1900s in the Eastern U.S.’ downtowns of dense, wooden buildings.

Spoiler: Firefighters, policymakers, local advocates and, notably, insurance professionals figured out how to stop it from happening. Here’s how they did it.

The Industrial Revolution, supercharged by the Civil War, transformed Northeastern cities into denser and denser wooden tinderboxes filled with tons of humans more than capable of accidentally generating sparks.

Fire departments, inspired by the war, were already reorganizing under a new paramilitary structure to more quickly and aggressively respond to blazes although most were still primarily volunteer-based. And beyond a few ad hoc fire safety laws that were scarcely enforced, cities’ building codes and water infrastructure naively lagged far behind the threat cities were creating.

So, cities started burning.

In 1866, a Fourth of July firecracker burned down much of Portland, Maine.

The destruction — more than $240 million in damage in today’s dollars — seriously spooked insurance companies focused on downtown industrial properties. Within days, they joined together to form the National Board of Fire Underwriters to try to stabilize their industry and promote fire-safety measures.

It wasn’t enough. A barn fire burned down Chicago in 1871 — more than $4 billion in damage in today’s dollars. A warehouse fire burned down Boston the next year — causing more than $1 billion in damage.

After the Boston fire, the board raised rates by 50% in large cities and began hurling ham-fisted threats to pull coverage altogether if cities didn’t get their act together and address their tinderbox problems quickly.

Over the next few decades, the board slowly got its own act together: It began collecting data on what caused cities to burn and funded a lab to run experiments. After Baltimore burned in 1904, the board released its own national fire-safety building codes based on that knowledge and created a grading scale to identify the risk of different cities based on their fire departments and water utilities as well as how closely their building practices aligned with the board’s building and electrical codes.

For politicians who dragged their feet because bolstering a water system or fire department is costly and designing a fire-safe building is, quite frankly, more cumbersome, the grading system made maintaining the status quo no longer viable — try explaining to your constituents that insurance rates in town are through the roof simply because the city won’t adopt the board’s new codes.

At some point, cities no longer burned down, only blocks or buildings did. As fire departments and cities continued to adopt new tech (with some pushing from the insurance industry) — motorized fire engines to replace horse-drawn ones, and later, smoke detectors and indoor sprinklers, then air tanks that allowed firefighters to enter buildings — fires didn’t often spread past a single floor or room.

These reforms, targeted mainly at commercial and industrial buildings in dense downtowns, largely missed the looming crisis in suburban residential areas that were slowly building themselves into a different kind of tinderbox that burned from the outside in.

In those areas, we’ve already seen many of the same dynamics play out: first the insurance rate hikes, then the cancellations. Now, some conversations and many heated debates — often driven by the insurance industry — are taking place around what we ought to do to protect our urban-wildland interface areas and how we can make them insurable again.

Organizations such as the Institute for Business & Home Safety play the role of the National Board of Fire Underwriters. Insurance wildfire models are starting to play the role of the grading scale, and policies such as Zone Zero, the national building codes.

As Hensler wrote in 2011, we now “accept building fires as commonplace but no longer expect them to consume adjacent buildings or blocks.”

It reminds me of a text Keegan Gibbs, who leads the Community Brigade program with the Los Angeles County Fire Department, sent me when I asked what he hopes to see in 10 years’ time: “neighborhoods where wildfire can move through the landscape without becoming a community-level disaster.”

More recent wildfire news

State Farm reached a deal with California last month to keep a 17% rate hike that took effect after the 2025 L.A. County fires, my colleague Paige St. John reports. The state initially rejected State Farm’s 22% rate hike request but eventually offered a temporary approval of the 17% hike last year. State Farm — which said it paid $6.2 billion in claims last year, largely from the L.A. County fires — said the increase enables the company to continue serving Californians.

A monthlong heat dome over the American West, fueled by climate change, has melted mountain snowpacks significantly this year, writes fellow Boiling Point host Ian James. With more time for vegetation to dry out, the early melting brings an increased risk of wildfire across the region this year.

In fact, acreage burned this year is nearly triple the 10-year average, reports Tim Casperson of newsletter the Hotshot Wake Up. The uptick has been fueled by a series of fires in Nebraska that has stunned many of the state’s ranchers as it decimated the hay that cattle rely on and stressed pregnant cows, reports Anila Yoganathan at the Flatwater Free Press.

A few last things in climate news

The U.S. Forest Service announced a major reorganization effort Tuesday that will move its headquarters from Washington to Salt Lake City, close research and development facilities in more than 30 states and shift management from broader regional offices to more localized state offices, reports Christine Peterson for High Country News. Former Forest Service employees and tribal leaders expressed concern that the move would uproot thousands of employees, scattering specialized regional knowledge. The chief of the Forest Service said the plan is intended to make the agency more “nimble, efficient, effective and closer to the forests and communities it serves.”

Gas prices in Los Angeles surged to $6 per gallon this week after the U.S. and Israel’s and the U.S.’s attack on Iran prompted the nation to close the Strait of Hormuz. However, California’s petroleum market watchdog is warning that some of the inflated price may be due to price gouging, my colleague Blanca Begert reports. In January, refineries were making 49 cents on the gallon, the watchdog group said; now, it’s closer to $1.25.

Honda is scrapping plans to build and sell three new electric-vehicle models in the U.S. after the Trump administration abandoned Biden-era policy goals to increase EV manufacturing and adoption, Dan Gearino reports for Inside Climate News. It comes after similar moves by Ford and Ram.

Finally, Heatmap News, in collaboration with MIT, has launched a new tool tracking electricity prices across the country on a month-to-month basis all the way down to the Zip Code level. You can check it out here.

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 wildfire news, follow @nohaggerty on X and @nohaggerty.bsky.social on Bluesky.

SACRAMENTO — Strong majorities of California voters believe American democracy is under attack and, in the wake of U.S. Supreme Court rulings narrowing federal protections, support enacting a new state Voting Rights Act to prohibit discrimination and efforts to suppress the ability to cast a ballot, a new poll showed.

The survey showed a sharp partisan divide over increasing voting rights protections, with Democrats and political independents overwhelmingly in favor and a majority of Republicans opposed. Fears that American democracy was either under attack, or at the very least being “tested,” were shared across political allegiances, according to a new poll released Thursday by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies.

“I think that it suggests that the California voters, especially Democrats and independents, are very worried about some of what they’ve seen going on in Washington, both the court decisions and the Trump administration,” said Eric Schickler, the institute’s co-director. “They see it as threatening kind of core American values.”

That anxiety comes after years of baseless claims by President Trump that the 2020 election was stolen from him, as well as Republican-led efforts to restrict the use of mail-in ballots and impose new requirements for voters to show identification and proof of citizenship.

Trump earlier this week signed an executive order to place new federal controls on voting by mail in states such as California, an action that Democrats called unconstitutional and vowed to challenge in court.

Schickler said Republican concerns about the fate of American democracy may stem in large part from allegations about voter fraud hyped by Trump and his supporters, including unfounded claims that droves of undocumented immigrants are swaying elections.

The survey found that 67% of California voters believe American democracy is under attack, including 84% of Democrats, 40% of Republicans and 64% of voters registered as “no party preference” or with other political parties. An almost equal number of Republicans, 38%, believed democracy was being “tested” but not under attack, compared with 13% of Democrats and 26% of independents. The remainder of those surveyed said American democracy is in no danger.

The partisan divide was more pronounced when voters were asked if they wanted California to enact its own Voting Rights Act after decisions by the Supreme Court limited federal protections against discrimination and unequal access to ballots, the poll found.

Overall, 66% of California registered voters backed adopting new state voter protections, with 88% of Democrats supporting new laws compared with 25% of Republicans and 66% of voters who are political independents or belong to other parties. Support for new state laws was strongest among Black voters — 72% — who historically have been targeted with discriminatory voting policies, including Jim Crow-era laws such as literacy tests and poll taxes.

The federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 banned those policies, ensuring that the right to vote cannot be denied because of race. The law also ensured that Black Americans and other communities of color had the opportunity to participate in all parts of the political system and elect the leaders of their choosing, influencing how political districts are drawn. The act was reauthorized by Congress in 2006 by an overwhelming bipartisan majority.

“Now it has come to the point where the president has tried to convince people that somehow equal voting rights is bad, because, in his words, ‘The wrong people are voting right,’” said Matt Barreto, faculty director of the UCLA Voting Rights Project, referring to Trump. “You have super majorities, very large percentages of Californians, who want the state to do more to protect voting rights, I think, because of the very tenuous climate right now, with the president constantly going after states for vote by mail and trying to get their voter rolls and these other sorts of things.”

Recent rulings by the conservative-leaning Supreme Court also have rolled back federal protections under the Voting Rights Act. A pending case, Louisiana vs. Callais, which involves the drawing of congressional districts, may overturn some of the remaining protections, Barreto said.

“I think people should be extremely nervous this court has not shown a lot of support for voting rights, and that’s the reason why California has an opportunity to pass its own state laws,” he said.

Among the laws California legislators could adopt, Barreto said, would be protections for early voting, banning onerous requirements on voters to prove citizenship and provide identification, and ensuring that congressional and other political districts are created to allow minority groups to elect representatives of their choice.

The Berkeley poll also found widespread support among California voters for requiring that the top three financial backers supporting and opposing ballot measures be listed in official ballot voter guides. A majority of Californians also supported expanding access to translation and interpreter assistance for populations that make up at least 5% or 5,000 voters in a county.

The Berkeley IGS poll surveyed 5,109 California registered voters online in English and Spanish from March 9 to 15. The results are estimated to have a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points in either direction in the overall sample, and larger numbers for subgroups.

Funding for the poll was provided to IGS by the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund, a private foundation based in San Francisco that aims to increase civic participation and improve the state’s democratic processes.

A recent California appellate court ruling will give civilian oversight groups the authority to subpoena the law enforcement agencies they are tasked with monitoring, a decision hailed by local advocates as a step toward greater transparency by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

In a unanimous opinion issued Thursday, justices from the state’s first appellate district found that an oversight body in Sonoma County is legally authorized to subpoena the county sheriff’s office while probing whistleblower inquiries. The justices also directed the law enforcement agency to comply with the watchdog’s requests for records.

The Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review and Outreach sued the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office in 2024 over refusals to comply with a whistleblower complaint subpoena. A lower court initially ruled in favor of the Sheriff’s Office, but the appellate judges reversed that decision.

Hans Johnson, chair of the Los Angeles County Civilian Oversight Commission, called the ruling a “big win” for law enforcement transparency.

“This is one of the most significant court rulings in recent CA history about oversight,” he said in a message to The Times. “It strengthens the powers of Civilian Oversight boards and Inspectors General and upholds our subpoena authority while also showcasing the strong public interest in robust, effective oversight of sheriffs, their departments, and their operations.”

The L.A. County Sheriff’s Department said in a statement that it is “discussing with County Counsel to determine the appropriate path for implementing any lawful authority granted to the Civilian Oversight Commission.”

Angelenos who have long sought records related to alleged misconduct by sheriff’s deputies also cheered the court’s decision.

Vanessa Perez’s son Joseph was badly beaten by deputies in the San Gabriel Valley six years ago. She has been fighting ever since for more clarity about what happened.

Perez said she hopes Thursday’s ruling will result in “some type of justice, some type of fairness” for her son and others who have been stymied by the Sheriff’s Department in efforts to obtain information.

“Hopefully we’ll have effective oversight at the end of this, someone other than LASD looking at Joseph’s case,” Perez said in a phone interview Monday. “Not one deputy, not one sheriff, nobody has ever brought to light what they did to Joseph.”

She has been vocal in her criticism of the agency and the fact that it has only released redacted versions of its “use of force” report from the July 2020 incident involving her son.

Perez’s case is one of several in which the Civilian Oversight Commission has tried unsuccessfully to pry records out of the Sheriff’s Department. Two other cases involved Emmett Brock, a trans man beaten by a deputy in a convenience store parking lot in 2023, and Andres Guardado, an 18-year-old fatally shot in 2020.

The commission subpoenaed unredacted files in the cases in Feburary 2025, but the county counsel’s office has argued they should remain confidential.

“L.A. County voters overwhelmingly approved Measure R in March 2020 to grant the Commission subpoena powers,” the Civilian Oversight Commission wrote in a statement. “However, six years later, it is not yet fully in effect.”

The county counsel’s office said in a statement that it “does not question the Civilian Oversight Commission’s power to issue subpoenas.”

But, it said, court decisions, the county’s Employee Relations Commission and the law “require that the County … meet and confer with labor partners about the impacts before documents are shared. Those discussions are underway.”

Hilda Eke, executive director of the L.A.-based advocacy organization Dignity and Power Now, said in a statement that the ruling is a positive development in the ongoing battle for more transparency.

“It affirms what our communities have always known: You cannot investigate injustice without the power to uncover the truth,” Eke said.

Today we discuss probability, self-destruction and political bossism.

Wow. California, which is as blue as Lake Tahoe, is about to elect a Republican governor! How crazy is that?

Whoa. Hold up, pony. Let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves.

Well, there’s certainly a lot of Democratic angst out there.

That’s for sure. It’s reminiscent of the panic that followed Joe Biden’s wretched debate performance in Atlanta, the biggest disaster to hit the city since a 2009 flood caused more than half a billion dollars in damage.

In California, the high anxiety is a result of the state’s “jungle” primary, in which all candidates appear on the same ballot, regardless of party, with the top two finishers advancing to a November runoff. With so many Democrats running, there’s the genuine prospect of them splintering partisan support, resulting in the leading GOP candidates — Chad Bianco and Steve Hilton — grabbing both slots and moving past June 2.

How likely is that to happen?

I can’t say. And Nostradamus is away on spring break.

But one of California’s leading political savants, Paul Mitchell, has developed a helpful online tool to suss out the possibilities. Visitors to his site have run tens of thousands of simulations, which right now put the odds of a Democratic freeze-out at about 17% to 20%.

Which suggests it’s unlikely. But it’s also not impossible.

Why don’t some Democrats step aside, for the good of the party?

That’s easy for you to say.

Anyone putting themselves out there by seeking public office has to have a certain amount of faith, in both their capabilities and the prospect of good fortune smiling upon them. (Luck being a greatly undervalued factor in political success.)

To be clear, no one is running away with the gubernatorial contest. For all the talk of Republicans “leading” in the polls, it’s more like a four- or five-way tie for first place, when you factor in the margin of error. And 20% support — which is roughly what the top candidate receives in surveys — is hardly a number to strike fear in the heart of rivals.

There’s also the YOLO factor.

You mean the county just outside Sacramento?

No, that’s Yolo.

I mean, YOLO — as in You Only Live Once

Several of the candidates mired near the bottom of polls — Antonio Villaraigosa, Xavier Becerra, Betty Yee — are probably looking at the end of the line if they lose this race. So you can understand, if not necessarily agree with, their reluctance to drop out and call it a day, in the hope that, just maybe, that proverbial bolt of lightning will strike.

So why doesn’t someone force some candidates to drop out?

Like who? There is no Tammany Hall. This isn’t Chicago under Boss Daley. Modern-day California has never had that kind of all-powerful political machine.

The closest approximations were in San Francisco, where brothers Phil and John Burton held great sway, and Los Angeles, where another pair of siblings, Howard and Michael Berman, exercised enormous clout with their compatriot, Henry Waxman. But their influence was mainly limited to Congress, the Legislature and local politics. They weren’t kingmakers when it came to electing California governors.

And the two major political parties, which never wielded the power they enjoy in other states, have become even less influential in this entrepreneurial age of politics, when candidates raise their money online and boost their profile by going on the political chat shows on TV.

What about Gavin Newsom?

The governor could certainly try to pare the Democratic field. But he’d risk humiliating himself and hurting his presidential prospects in the process.

How so?

It would be embarrassing if Republicans were to seize the governorship on Newsom’s watch. (At least among those political insiders who pay attention to that kind of stuff.) It would also be embarrassing if the governor tried to muscle candidates aside and failed.

It’s not at all clear Newsom would have much clout. He isn’t particularly close to any of the candidates running. No one needed his blessing to enter the race, or his backing to sustain their candidacy. And there isn’t very much the term-limited governor, playing out his final months in office, can offer as incentive to quit.

Newsom also has to consider how it would look if he tried to ease out the laggards — whose ranks happen to include all the prominent candidates of color: Becerra, Villaraigosa, Yee and state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond.

We saw how that worked out for USC, which abruptly canceled a scheduled debate after a storm of criticism over its selection process and the exclusion of those four candidates.

Would Newsom care to veto Thurmond et al., then defend his actions in, say, South Carolina, where Black voters typically constitute more than half the Democratic primary electorate?

Sounds like Newsom doesn’t have many good options.

No.

Speaking of options, is there anything Democrats could do if they’re frozen out of the runoff?

Such as?

Waging a write-in campaign in the fall?

Nope. Under California law, write-in candidates are allowed only in the primary.

Hmm. How about a Democrat running as an independent?

Nope. Same rule applies. Only the two candidates getting the most votes in June will be on the November ballot.

So what can Democrats do?

Hope their voters consolidate around a single candidate, or either Bianco or Hilton pull far enough ahead with GOP voters that there’s room for a Democrat to make the top two.

Failing that, get ready for a Democratic-led recall campaign, beginning early in 2027.

WASHINGTON — President Trump signaled Wednesday that the United States is eyeing an offramp in its war with Iran, as he also raised the possibility of a major shift in U.S. alliances, including the potential withdrawal from NATO.

Trump indicated in a social media post that Iran’s president wanted a ceasefire, and that the United States would be open to doing so, if Iran agrees to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil shipping route that has been affected during the monthlong conflict.

“Until then, we are blasting Iran into oblivion or, as they say, back to the Stone Ages!!!” Trump wrote.

The remarks appeared to outline a possible diplomatic opening with Tehran, but hours later Iranian officials said that Trump’s claims about being close to a deal were “false and baseless” and that the waterway remained “firmly and decisively under the control” of the Islamic Republic’s forces.

“The strait will not be opened to the enemies of this nation through the ridiculous spectacle by the president of the United States,” the paramilitary Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps wrote in a statement.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Wednesday also wrote a public letter denouncing what he described as a “flood of distortions and manufactured narratives” about the war from the U.S., arguing that Iran is not a threat and had only defended itself against American aggression.

He called on the American people to “look beyond the machinery of disinformation” to reach their own conclusions about the war and its purpose.

“Is ‘America First’ truly among the priorities of the U.S. government today?” he wrote, echoing recent complaints from Trump’s own base about the president’s commitments to his campaign promises.

The dueling messages underscored the uncertainty about how much longer the conflict in the Middle East will last and whether the United States will be able to achieve its main goal of preventing Iran from ever producing a nuclear weapon.

Trump, who on Tuesday said he expects the U.S. will leave Iran within three weeks, was poised to address the nation Wednesday night about the war. The White House said the president’s address would formally outline the objectives of Operation Epic Fury, whose mission has at times been convoluted even as Trump administration officials maintain their explanations for waging the war have been “clear and unchanging.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced Trump’s speech late Tuesday, after Trump downplayed remarks made by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth about Iran’s lingering military capabilities.

In the lead-up to those remarks, Trump told Reuters that he was looking to pull American forces from the region “quickly” with the possibility of returning to Iran periodically for “spot hits” when necessary.

The president, who said he believed the U.S. military is close to ensuring Iran loses its ability to possess a nuclear weapon in the future, did not seem too worried about Iran having highly enriched uranium in its stockpiles.

“That’s so far underground, I don’t care about that,” he told Reuters, adding that the U.S. military will be “watching it by satellite.”

Trump, however, remained focused on having Iran reopen the Strait of Hormuz, an oil route through which a fifth of the world’s oil flows.

He said this week that he may pull American forces from the region and leave other countries to deal with the hurdles of reopening the waterway. But on Wednesday, he seemed to walk back that stance, and said a key part of the ongoing negotiations hinged on Iran ending the de facto blockade on the strait.

It remains unclear whether Israel, which began bombing Iran alongside the U.S. on Feb. 28, would agree to the same terms as Trump and stop hostilities against Iran.

Talks about the potential end of the conflict led stocks to rise Tuesday, but it remains unclear whether higher food prices could persist for months or longer. It is also uncertain when U.S. gas prices — which jumped past an average of $4 a gallon this week for the time since 2022 — would go lower.

NATO becomes a factor in the war

As Trump considers pulling out of Iran, he is also weighing a withdrawal from NATO, telling Reuters that fellow member states’ lack of support during the war has him “absolutely” considering withdrawing from the security alliance, which was ratified by the Senate in 1949.

In an interview with Fox News on Tuesday night, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the U.S. is planning to “reexamine” its relationship with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and whether it makes sense to be part of a “one-way-street” alliance.

“Why are we in NATO?” Rubio said. “Why do we send trillions of dollars and have all of these Americans stationed in the region, if in our time of need, we are not going to be allowed to use those bases?”

Rubio’s comment marks a notable evolution from his position in Congress. As senator in 2023, Rubio helped spearhead legislation that said the president “shall not suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States” from NATO unless the Senate agrees by a two-thirds vote to do so.

On Wednesday, Rubio told CBS that he maintains Congress should play a role on whether the U.S. should withdraw from NATO. He added that he does not believe Trump “will remove us from NATO,” but he does believe the president will demand that NATO allies “do more.”

In a joint statement Wednesday, Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.) said that the United States will remain in the treaty and that the Senate “will continue to support the alliance for the peace and protection it provides America, Europe and the World.”

Although Trump has previously threatened to end U.S. membership in NATO, his most recent remarks have put added pressure on European allies to revisit the terms of their relationship.

In a post on X, Finnish President Alexander Stubb said he had a “constructive discussion” with Trump on Wednesday about NATO.

“Problems are there to be resolved, pragmatically,” Stubb wrote.

Their conversation came after Trump and Hegseth complained that European countries have been hesitant to help the U.S. in its war against Iran. Just this week, Italy and Spain refused to allow U.S. warplanes from landing at their military bases before flying to the Middle East.

Britain’s prime minister, Keir Starmer, defended NATO on Wednesday, saying it was the “single most effective military alliance the world has ever seen” and, more broadly, said he would not cave to pressure to join the Iran war.

“Whatever the pressure on me and others, whatever the noise, I’m going to act in the British national interest in all the decisions that I make,” Starmer told reporters. “That’s why I’ve been absolutely clear that this is not our war, and we’re not going to get dragged into it.”

As diplomatic efforts continue, the Trump administration has increased its military presence in the Middle East, with thousands of U.S. troops arriving in the region as ground operations in the war remain an option.

The U.S. military buildup in the Mideast came as fighting continued to escalate in the Persian Gulf region on Wednesday.

Iran hit an oil tanker off Qatar’s coast, prompting the evacuation of 21 crew members. In Bahrain, there were alerts for incoming missiles, while Kuwait’s state-run news agency KUNA reported that a drone hit a fuel tank at Kuwait International Airport. Meanwhile, Jordan’s military intercepted a ballistic missile and two drones fired by Iran, and an airstrike in Tehran appeared to have hit the former U.S. Embassy compound.

Additionally, Israeli strikes killed at least five people on a Beirut neighborhood. Israel invaded southern Lebanon in March after the Iran-linked militant group Hezbollah began launching missiles into northern Israel.

This article includes reporting from the Associated Press.

FRESNO  — Four of the top Democrats running for California governor on Wednesday told a agriculture-friendly Central Valley audience that the left-leaning state’s restrictions on business and the environment have made life more difficult for farmers and should be rolled back.

The candidates onstage at the Fresno State political forum, including two Republicans, did their best to appeal to voters in the midsection of California who often feel neglected by a state government dominated by big-city politicians from Southern California and the Bay Area.

“I’m here today because for far too long, the interests of our ag economy and our rural towns and cities and communities have been second tier, if they’ve even been on the agenda in Sacramento,” said San José Mayor Matt Mahan, a moderate Democrat whose campaign has yet to live up to the high expectations it initially received.

Mahan and five others invited to the forum focused on the state’s affordability crisis, water, government regulations and other issues facing the agricultural hub — all doing their best to play up any ties to the farmers and farmworkers who are so essential to providing food to California and the nation.

Mahan recalled growing up in Watsonville, an agricultural community that is the home of Driscoll’s berries and Martinelli’s apple cider. Fellow Democrat and former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra noted his family’s personal ties to the valley. His father picked crops along State Route 99 as a young man, he grew up in Sacramento, and his wife is from Hanford and Fresno.

Former conservative commentator Steve Hilton said his family had a small farm in Hungary, which they fled because of communism. Former Democratic Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, who grew up in Iowa during the farming crisis of the 1980s, spoke of being the descendant of generations of farmers and being a member of 4-H as well the Future Farmers of America.

“I’m not a farmer today, but I thought I would be. … I believe in the future of agriculture with a faith born not of words, but of deeds,” Porter said, repeating FFA’s creed.

The event marked the first gathering of gubernatorial hopefuls since USC pulled the plug on its debate last week. USC officials canceled the event less than 24 hours before it was scheduled to begin after facing criticism for excluding the top candidates of color. The university said it used opinion polls and financial viability to determine which candidates were invited.

Organizers of the Fresno State event invited candidates who have earned at least an average of 3% in recent polls compiled by RealClearPolitics. Along with Mahan, Becerra, Hilton and Porter, the candidates invited included former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. State Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and former state Controller Betty Yee, both Democrats, were not invited.

Two leading Democratic candidates were not at the Fresno State forum: billionaire Tom Steyer was scheduled to tour the polluted Tijuana River Valley in San Diego County. Rep. Eric Swalwell’s campaign cited a scheduling conflict but did not elaborate. Swalwell (D-Dublin) appeared to be doing media interviews in San Francisco on Tuesday.

Cutting gas taxes and other ways to save

California’s high cost of living is one of the most visible and pressing issues in the race to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom, and candidates pitched their plans to address it, primarily by lowering housing and energy costs.

Bianco, Hilton, Villaraigosa and Mahan have floated plans to cut oil industry regulations and suspend the state’s 61-cent-per-gallon gas tax. Bianco went further, saying he would completely eliminate the gas tax. Hilton said he would cap vehicle registrations at $71 per year no matter the type of car. Porter said her top priority is to lower housing costs by “building housing faster, building more housing, changing how we permit housing and innovating in construction and design and materials.”

Republican candidates blamed Democratic policies for the state’s high cost of living and argued that it would not be solved under a new governor of the same party. Both Bianco and Hilton pledged to gut state agencies responsible for regulating air and water quality.

“We’re never going to reduce the cost of groceries or anything else until we abandon the climate dogma that has got us to this point,” Hilton said, invoking the state’s goal to reach carbon neutrality by 2045 as a major cost driver.

According to a recent UC Berkeley IGS/L.A. Times poll, lowering the state’s cost of living was the top issue that likely voters want the state’s next governor to address. It was followed by cutting government waste and corruption — the top priority for Republican voters — and addressing homelessness.

Republicans take their shots

Wednesday’s forum was among the rare instances when Hilton and Bianco appeared before the same crowd. The Republicans have led polls for months, raising the specter of two Republicans and no Democrats appearing on the November general election ballot under California’s top-two primary system.

On Wednesday, they each tried to appeal to a more conservative-leaning audience than many other gubernatorial forums by blasting their Democratic opponents and statewide leaders.

”I think every single Democrat on this stage today should start with an apology,” Hilton said. “An apology for what their party has done to this area and this industry, stealing your water, piling on the regulations — 1,000% increase in the last decade or so, cutting the pay of agricultural workers, on and on.”

The Democrats onstage were repeatedly challenged and at times interrupted by Republican candidates who argued that electing another Democratic governor would bring more of the same problems to the region.

“You can’t just believe what’s on this stage,” Bianco said. “You have to listen to what they say in front of groups that don’t think like you, because everything that they’re saying here contradicts what they say in those groups with more cap-and-trade, more regulation, more everything else.”

Democrats talk up their experience

Democrats largely concurred on issues such as reducing regulations and increasing water supply to farmers. So they sought to differentiate themselves based on their experience and records in office.

Mahan painted himself as a pragmatist who led to San José being named the safest large city in the nation, reducing homelessness by one-third and spurring the construction of housing by reducing regulatory restrictions and fees.

“I’m accountable every day for making people’s lives better. I don’t get to make excuses and blame another party,” Mahan said. “You deserve better from Sacramento, and I’ll work with you to make sure we deliver it.”

Villaraigosa pointed to his eight-year tenure as mayor of Los Angeles, saying the city went from being the most violent big city in the country when he took office to being the safest by the time he left. He also said he took on the teachers union, which he once worked for, resulting in a 60% increase in the graduation rate.

Becerra pointed to his experiences leading the sprawling federal health agency in the Biden administration, including dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, the wildfires that devastated Maui, Hawaii, avian flu and monkey pox.

“We do not need someone who needs training wheels,” he said.

Porter highlighted that she was the only candidate on the stage who refuses to take money from corporations and corporate PACs. The former congresswoman, who gained fame for her aggressive questioning of chief executives and Trump administration officials while in Congress, also pointed to her longtime focus on oversight.

“There are too many regulations that we are passing,” she said. “That is why I’m running for governor, to make sure that when things come to my desk, the first question is going to be, why did we need this?”

Water is for fighting

Nearly half of the forum was dedicated to questions about water policy, a complicated and politically thorny issue for Central Valley farmers and California as a whole. Most agreed the state should fast-track new reservoirs, raise some existing dams and increase water recycling to boost supply.

“We need an ‘all of the above’ solution,” Villaraigosa said. “That means we need recycling, we need [groundwater] recharge. We need dams. We need underground aquifers.”

Some Democrats, along with Hilton, continued to distance themselves from the proposed Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta tunnel, a huge project to transport water to the Central Valley and Southern California that has been tied up by legal challenges.

Bianco lambasted “environmental regulation[s] that makes weeds and bugs more important than your life,” and Hilton slammed “ridiculous bureaucracy” created by environmental laws such as the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.

Fourth-generation tomato and pepper farmer Briana Giampaoli described herself as moderate and said she hasn’t decided whom to support for governor yet, but she was impressed by the candidates’ breadth of knowledge on water and the regulatory hurdles farmers face, particularly Hilton.

“That was really surprising, and I’m glad that both parties seem to understand that there needs to be a change in California, that something is not working,” she said. “The industry is changing as a whole across the country, and the regulations here continue to make it harder and harder to farm.”

Democrats on immigration

Democratic candidates faced a friendlier audience at the Fresno City College forum later in the day, where they unanimously expressed support for immigrant communities and said the state should fully fund Medi-Cal coverage for undocumented people. To close a budget deficit, Newsom and state lawmakers froze enrollment and raised premiums for undocumented adults on the program.

Porter and Thurmond called for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to be abolished but said, short of that, the state should monitor the federal agency’s operations in the state to protect civil liberties. The other candidates agreed; Villaraigosa pledged to ensure federal detention centers comply with all health and safety rules.

WASHINGTON — In his first formal address to the nation since launching a war on Iran more than a month ago, President Trump on Wednesday night repeated a familiar list of claimed successes — and brushed aside setbacks — while providing little clarity on a clear path to ending the conflict.

“We are going to finish the job, and we’re going to finish it very fast. We are getting very close,” the president said from the White House.

Trump said Iran is “no longer a threat,” yet spoke of potentially needing to escalate the conflict and increase bombings on Iran’s energy and oil infrastructure if it continues to fight back.

“If there is no deal, we are going to hit each and every one of their electric generating plants, very hard and probably simultaneously,” he said. “We have not hit their oil, even though that’s the easiest target of all, because it would not give them even a small chance of survival or rebuilding. But we could hit it, and it would be gone, and there’s not a thing they could do about it.”

Trump earlier this week said he expects to pull American forces from Iran within three weeks, and emphasized that the United States does not have to be in the Middle East but that it is only there to “help our allies.”

In his speech, Trump did not lay out a specific timeline for an exit strategy, but said the the U.S. is “on track to complete all of America’s military objectives shortly, very shortly.”

“We are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. We are going to bring them back to the Stone Ages, where they belong,” he said. “In the meantime, discussions are ongoing.”

He also repeated his assertions, made for weeks, that the U.S. has basically already defeated Iran and won the war, which he characterized as a “decisive, overwhelming victory.”

He also stressed that it is “very important that we keep this conflict in perspective,” before listing out — by month and day — the length of World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the Iraq War.

Prior to Wednesday night’s formal address, Trump had only spoken of the war — which U.S. and Israel launched against Iran on Feb. 28 — in less formal settings, during media gatherings and other public events.

The speech was a key messaging moment for the president, who, 33 days into the war, has struggled to clearly explain the scope and objectives of a conflict that has killed thousands of people in Iran and neighboring countries and disrupted global markets.

Trump repeatedly insisted that the U.S. is doing great, is “in great shape for the future,” and doesn’t need the oil that Iran has put a stranglehold on in the Strait of Hormuz, ignoring the clear effects of the war and those disruptions on the U.S., including on gas prices.

Those effects are already contributing to fractures within Trump’s base. Some have expressed frustration with the administration’s decision to enter a new conflict in the Middle East, concerns that could become a political liability for Republicans ahead of the high-stakes midterm elections in November.

In his remarks, Trump appeared to be speaking to those who have criticized him for deviating from his campaign promises by entering the war, saying he had promised to never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon “from the very first day” he announced his first presidential campaign in 2015.

Trump has repeatedly downplayed the economic pressure the war has placed on Americans, including rising gas prices, arguing that the short-term financial strain is necessary for national security. He has also promised that gas prices will “come tumbling down” when the conflict ends.

“Gas prices will rapidly come back down,” Trump repeated on Wednesday. “Stock prices will rapidly go back up. They haven’t come down very much. Frankly, they came down a little bit, but they’ve had some very good days.”

Trump appeared less energetic during his evening speech than during some of his previous daytime events, where he has consistently maintained an upbeat tone about the war, while offering inconsistent accounts of what his administration aimed to achieve, or how long and what it would take to meet those objectives.

Those inconsistencies were evident even hours ahead of the address. In an interview with Reuters, he said he was not concerned about the enriched uranium held by Tehran — a statement that appeared to undercut a central justification for the war.

“That’s so far underground, I don’t care about that,” Trump said, adding that the U.S. military will be “watching it by satellite.”

In public remarks ahead of the address, Trump said the war was launched to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, but also that the U.S. had completely obliterated Iran’s nuclear capabilities months prior, in separate attacks over the summer. He also said he was worried about Iran’s enriched uranium, wanted the U.S. to take it, and would even consider sending U.S. forces inside Iran to collect it.

There have also been mixed messages about the U.S.’s intentions for Iran’s leadership since Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed at the start of the conflict, leaving a leadership vacuum that was filled by his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, a 56-year-old hard-line cleric who Trump initially called an “unacceptable choice.”

As Iran’s clerical rulers maintained a firm grip on the country, Trump administration officials, such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio, argued that U.S. war objectives had “nothing to do” with Iran’s leadership. But Trump in recent days has repeatedly talked about how “regime change” was achieved.

On Wednesday, Trump said a deal remained within reach with Iran’s new leaders, who he called “less radical and much more reasonable.”

Hours before Trump was to deliver his speech, Rubio posted a video which he began by saying, “Many Americans are asking, ‘Why did the United States have to attack Iran now?’” — an apparent acknowledgment that Trump’s own answers to that question in recent days may have failed to resonate.

Rubio also pushed another rationale for the war that the administration has floated on and off for the past month — saying Iran was building up an arsenal of missiles and drones to shield its nuclear ambitions, and that the war was the “last best chance” for the U.S. to eliminate those weapons capabilities before it was too late.

“We were on the verge of an Iran that had so many missiles and so many drones that nobody could do anything about their nuclear weapons program in the future,” Rubio said. “That was an intolerable risk.”

Others also tried to frame the war narrative Wednesday.

Prior to Trump’s speech, Iran President Masoud Pezeshkian issued a public letter denouncing what he described as “a flood of distortions and manufactured narratives” from the U.S., and arguing Iran is not a threat and has only ever defended itself against U.S. aggression.

He called on the American people to “look beyond the machinery of misinformation” from the Trump administration and reach their own conclusions about the war and its purpose, at one point echoing a question also being asked by some in Trump’s base: “Is ‘America First’ truly among the priorities of the U.S. government today?”

He noted Iran was in the midst of nuclear negotiations with the U.S. when the U.S. attacked it “as a proxy for Israel,” and accused U.S. leaders of committing a “war crime” by targeting Iran’s energy and industrial facilities.

“Exactly which of the American people’s interests are truly being served by this war?” he asked.

WASHINGTON — President Trump is not immune from civil claims that he incited a mob of his supporters to attack the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, a federal judge has ruled in one of the last unresolved legal cases stemming from the riot.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled Tuesday that Trump’s remarks at his “Stop the Steal” rally, held on the Ellipse near the White House shortly before the siege began, “plausibly” were inciting words that are not protected by the 1st Amendment right to free speech.

The Republican president is not shielded from liability for much of his Jan. 6 conduct, including that speech and many of his social media posts that day, according to the judge. But Mehta said Trump cannot be held liable for his official acts that day, including his Rose Garden remarks during the riot and his interactions with Justice Department officials.

“President Trump has not shown that the Speech reasonably can be understood as falling within the outer perimeter of his Presidential duties,” Mehta wrote. “The content of the Ellipse Speech confirms that it is not covered by official-acts immunity.”

Not the first court ruling on presidential immunity

The decision is not the court’s first ruling that Trump can be held liable for the violence at the Capitol and it is unlikely to be the last given the near-certainty of an appeal. But the 79-page ruling sets the stage for a possible civil trial in the same courthouse where Trump was charged with crimes for his Jan. 6 conduct, before his 2024 election ended the prosecution.

Mehta previously refused to dismiss the claims against Trump in a February 2022 ruling that Trump was not entitled to presidential immunity from the claims brought by Democratic members of Congress and law enforcement officers who guarded the Capitol on Jan. 6. In that decision, Mehta also concluded that Trump’s words during his rally speech plausibly amounted to incitement and were not protected by the 1st Amendment.

The case returned to Mehta after an appeals court ruling upheld his 2022 decision. He said Tuesday’s ruling on immunity falls under a more “rigorous” legal standard at this later stage in the litigation.

Mehta, who was nominated by Democratic President Obama, said his latest decision is not a “final pronouncement on immunity for any particular act.”

“President Trump remains free to reassert official-acts immunity as a defense at trial. But the burden will remain his and will be subject to a higher standard of proof,” the judge wrote.

Official capacity vs. office-seeker

Trump spoke to a crowd of his supporters at the rally before the mob’s attack disrupted the joint session of Congress for certifying Democrat Joe Biden’s 2020 electoral victory over Trump. Trump closed out his speech by saying, “We fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

Trump’s lawyers argued that Trump’s conduct on Jan. 6 meets the threshold for presidential immunity.

The plaintiffs contended that Trump cannot prove he was acting entirely in his official capacity rather than as an office-seeking private individual. They also said the Supreme Court has held that office-seeking conduct falls outside the scope of presidential immunity.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., who at that time led the House Homeland Security Committee, sued Trump, Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph Giuliani and members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers extremist groups over the Jan. 6 riot. Other Democratic members of Congress later joined the litigation, which was consolidated with the officers’ claims.

‘Victory for the rule of law’

The civil claims survived Trump’s sweeping act of clemency on the first day of his second term, when he pardoned, commuted prison sentences and ordered the dismissal of all 1,500-plus criminal cases stemming from the Capitol siege. More than 100 police officers were injured while defending the Capitol from rioters.

The plaintiffs’ legal team includes attorneys from the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Damon Hewitt, the group’s president and executive director, praised the ruling as a “monumental victory for the rule of law, affirming that no one, including the president of the United States, is above it.”

“The court rightly recognizes that President Trump’s actions leading to the January 6 insurrection fell outside the scope of presidential duties,” Hewitt said in a statement. “This ruling is an important step toward accountability for the violent attack on the Capitol and our democracy.”

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Department of Homeland Security is pausing the purchase of new warehouses intended to house immigrants as it scrutinizes all contracts signed under former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, according to a senior Homeland Security official.

The development comes just days after the new Homeland Security Secretary, Markwayne Mullin, was sworn in last week to lead a department that was steeped in controversy during Noem’s tenure but also central to President Trump’s mass deportation agenda.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. News of the pause was first reported by NBC News.

The official also said that warehouse purchases that were already made are also being scrutinized.

When asked about reports of the pause, the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement that “as with any transition, we are reviewing agency policies and proposals.”

The Department also noted that Mullin said during his confirmation hearing that he wanted to “work with community leaders” and “be good partners.”

Mullin inherited a $38.3 billion plan to boost detention capacity to 92,000 beds by acquiring eight large-scale detention centers, capable of housing 7,000 to 10,000 detainees each, and 16 smaller regional processing centers.

The plan was hatched during Noem’ s tenure but immediately ran into intense opposition around the country by residents and communities opposed to such large Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities in their neighborhoods.

Many objected on moral grounds to ICE’s presence in their neighborhoods, while others questioned whether the facilities would be a drain on local resources, such as sewer and water systems.

So far, 11 warehouses have been purchased in Arizona, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas and Utah, with the federal government spending a combined $1.074 billion.

But lawsuits are pending in three of the states. Meanwhile, the capacity of at least one warehouse has been scaled back. Plans initially called for a warehouse in the Phoenix suburb of Surprise to be used as a 1,500-bed processing site, but Homeland Security now plans to cap occupied beds at 542, Surprise Mayor Kevin Sartor said during a news conference on Monday.

In many cases, mayors, county commissioners, governors and members of Congress learned about ICE’s ambitions only after the agency bought or leased space for detainees, leading to shock and frustration even in areas that have backed Trump.

The warehouse plan ran into challenges from the start. Eight deals were scuttled in places like Kansas City, Missouri, when owners decided not to sell.

Pressed on the lack of information during his confirmation hearing, Mullin acknowledged there had been issues.

“We’ve got to protect the homeland and we’re going to do that,” Mullin said. “But obviously we want to work with community leaders.”

Mullin, who took over and expanded his family’s plumbing business before representing Oklahoma in the U.S House and Senate, said that “one thing I do know is construction.”

He noted that most municipalities don’t have the capacity in their infrastructure for waste and water.

“So, it’s important that we’re talking to the communities and if we’re having additional needs, we can work with the cities,” he said at his confirmation hearing earlier this month.

Santana and Hollingsworth write for the Associated Press. Hollingsworth reported from Kansas City, Mo.

WASHINGTON  — Inside the Supreme Court, as justices heard oral arguments in the case over birthright citizenship, President Trump became the first sitting president to attend such a proceeding.

Outside the court, the great-grandson of Wong Kim Ark — the San Francisco man whose landmark Supreme Court case affirmed birthright citizenship in 1898 — addressed a crowd of hundreds of people.

“Wong Kim Ark’s victory ensured that people like me and millions of others would be recognized as fully American, not outsiders in the country of our birth,” said Norman Wong. “This case transformed the 14th Amendment from words on paper into living promise. Today, that promise is still being tested.”

Surrounded by protesters in favor of birthright citizenship was a lone counter-protester. The woman, who wore a red baseball cap and a sweatshirt stating “Chicago flips red,” yelled into a megaphone as speakers addressed the crowd.

“Freedmen stand with Donald Trump,” she said as the Rev. William Barber II spoke. “America first. Americans first.”

The Rev. William Barber II speaks during a rally on protecting birthright citizenship outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

(Al Drago / Getty Images)

Undaunted, Barber noted that the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, makes clear that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen.

“The 14th Amendment protects babies from a caste system,” Barber said. “They didn’t allow evil in 1868, and we’re not going to allow evil in 2026.”

“Stop lying, pastor,” the woman taunted him.

After Barber finished his remarks, the woman was drowned out by Aretha Franklin’s “Respect” playing over the speakers.

Inside the building, justices heard arguments over a Trump executive order which aimed to end birthright citizenship. The administration has argued that children born of parents who are in the country illegally or temporary visas should be denied citizenship.

A man from Cameroon said he chose to speak out because he doesn’t want future generations to become stateless and feel what he has felt. The man said he had been authorized to work in the United States Temporary Protected Status until the Trump administration terminated it last year.

“I know what it feels like to have your sense of belonging taken from you overnight,” he said.

Nancy Jeannechild, 69, traveled from Baltimore with a handwritten sign asking the justices to “Do your job.” She said Trump has amassed too much power and that the Supreme Court hasn’t stood up to him enough.

“This is another opportunity for them to do the right thing, and I hope that they will,” she said. “Just because Trump doesn’t like it doesn’t mean it’s not what’s in the Constitution.”

Araceli Hernandez, 29, attended the rally with her 1-year-old son. She said she immigrated from Honduras five years ago and that her son being born here means he has better opportunities to study, access to healthcare and a safe environment to live in.

“We came to represent the children who are not yet born because they also have a right to have a better future in this country,” she said.

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said he was confident birthright citizenship would prevail because the Constitution is clear. The fight is personal, he said, as the a proud American and son of immigrants.

“The moment I was born on U.S. soil I was born a citizen, and I’ll be damned if Donald Trump tries to take that away from me,” he said. “What’s on the line isn’t just a question about citizenship — it is about upholding the Constitution, respecting the rule of law and keeping the promise that the 14th Amendment has held for more than 150 years.”

After the arguments wrapped up, Cecilia Wang, who led the defense of birthright citizenship for the American Civil Liberties Union, addressed the crowd. She said she was confident that the Trump administration would lose the case.

“Whether you’re an indigenous American, whether you are descended from African Americans who were enslaved and free, whether you are the descendant of someone who came on the Mayflower or someone who arrived just before your birth, we all are Americans alike,” she said. “That is the principle that we stood up for together, all of us, in the Supreme Court of the United States today.”

WASHINGTON — As President Trump assembled his Cabinet last week, he asked Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance to give an update on the Iran war.

Rubio, known for his hawkish views, gave an impassioned defense of the war, calling it “a favor” to the United States and the world.

Vance, who has long pushed for restraint in U.S. military intervention overseas, was more sedate. He said that the U.S. now has “options” it didn’t have a year ago and that it is important Iran does not get a nuclear weapon — before redirecting his remarks toward wishing the troops a happy Easter.

The exchange was a distillation of their diverging postures toward the war that their boss has launched in Iran. And it comes as some would-be Republican presidential candidates begin quietly courting officials in key states like New Hampshire in the early stages of the GOP’s next nomination fight.

With Vance and Rubio seen as the party’s strongest potential candidates in a 2028 primary, the two have to balance their roles in the Trump administration with their future political plans.

“It’s very obvious from the way that Rubio talks about Iran and the way that Vance talks about Iran that they are of different casts of mind,” said Curt Mills, the executive director of “The American Conservative” magazine and a vocal critic of the war. The Cabinet meeting episode was telling, he said, because it seemed as though Vance, discussing Easter, was “literally trying to talk about anything else other than the war.”

The White House addressed the Rubio-Vance relationship on Wednesday in an unsolicited statement after the initial publication of this article.

“President Trump has full confidence in both Vice President Vance and Secretary Rubio, who continue to be trusted voices within the administration,” said White House spokesperson Anna Kelly. “He values both the vice president and the secretary’s opinions and wealth of expertise.”

It’s too soon to forecast how Republican voters might feel about the war next spring, when the 2028 contest is expected to begin in earnest, but the risks for both Vance and Rubio are acute. Rubio’s full-throated support for the war could come back to haunt him depending on how the conflict develops. Vance, meanwhile, would risk accusations of disloyalty if he were to stray too far from Trump, but struggles to square an appearance of support for the war with his past comments.

Vance, who served in the Marines in the Iraq war, has said that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, but he’s long been skeptical of foreign military interventions.

Trump seemed to allude that Vance may have held onto that position in private discussions about Iran, telling reporters that Vance was “philosophically a little bit different than me” at the outset of the conflict.

“I think he was maybe less enthusiastic about going, but he was quite enthusiastic,” Trump said.

Though Vance has been careful in how he speaks about the war, what he’s not saying has been conspicuous. On a March 13 trip to North Carolina, he was twice asked by reporters if he had concerns about the conflict. Each time, he said it was important that Trump could have conversations with advisers “without his team then running their mouths to the American media.”

A few days later at the White House, when Vance was again asked if he had concerns, he accused the reporter of “trying to drive a wedge between members of the administration, between me and the president.”

For Rubio, long before he became the country’s chief diplomat, he voiced support for muscular foreign policy and American intervention abroad.

Days into the war, he told reporters that it was “a wise decision” for Trump to launch the operation, that there “absolutely was an imminent threat” from Iran and that the operation “needed to happen.”

State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott pointed to last week’s Cabinet meeting as evidence that “the entire administration is in lockstep behind President Trump.”

“Secretary Rubio is proud to be on the team implementing President Trump’s policies, and he has a great relationship, both professionally and personally, with the entire team,” Pigott said.

Fractures are emerging in the GOP

The apparent split between Rubio and Vance on the Iran war is emblematic of the divide starting to cleave within the Republican Party. A recent survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found some divisions within the GOP on Iran, with about half of Republicans saying the U.S. military action has been “about right.” Relatively few Republicans, about 2 in 10, say military action has not gone far enough, while about one-quarter say it’s gone too far.

While some conservatives have described the war as a betrayal, many other Republicans have cheered on the president’s actions.

Alice Swanson, a 62-year-old who attended Vance’s event in North Carolina, said she wants Vance and Rubio to run together in 2028 but favors the vice president.

“I think he fully believes and supports exactly what his convictions are,” Swanson said.

Swanson acknowledged, nonetheless, that Vance has been an outspoken opponent of interventionist policy but has been quieter on the subject since the war. “I can see both sides,” Swanson said after expressing full support for Trump’s decisions.

Tracy Brill, a 62-year-old from Rocky Mount, spoke highly of Rubio, but declared, “I love JD Vance.”

She made it clear she sides with the president, calling the course he’s taken “spot on.” But she defended the vice president if he seems at odds with his past statements, noting politicians do it frequently. “They’ve all changed their positions at one point or another,” she said.

However, Joe Ropar, attending the Conservative Political Action Conference last week, said Rubio’s unequivocal support for the Iran war helped crystallize his preference for the secretary of state for 2028.

“I’m not looking at JD Vance for president, and it’s for stuff like that,” said Ropar, a 72-year-old retired military contractor from McKinney, Texas. “I don’t 100% trust him.”

Benjamin Williams, of Austin, Texas, said at CPAC that both Trump and Vance are “tied to this war.” The 25-year-old marketing specialist for Young Americans for Liberty is looking elsewhere for a candidate.

The political risks might not be known until the field fills out

Whether the war becomes a political problem for Vance and Rubio depends on who ultimately enters the GOP’s next presidential primary.

While Vance and Rubio are currently considered the overwhelming front-runners, former New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu expects a half dozen high-profile Republicans to enter the contest.

Sununu and former RNC Committeewoman Juliana Bergeron told The Associated Press that multiple Republican presidential prospects have reached out to them in recent weeks to discuss the political landscape in the state that traditionally hosts the opening presidential primary; they declined to name them.

Republican strategist Jim Merrill, a top New Hampshire adviser for Rubio’s 2016 presidential bid, predicted that Iran would become a flashpoint in 2028 — just as the Iraq war was for Democrats in 2004 and 2008.

“If for some reason things don’t go as anticipated, there will be contrasts drawn,” he said.

Still, Sununu is doubtful that Iran would become a meaningful dividing line in a prospective Vance-Rubio matchup given their status as prominent members of the Trump administration. Both will likely take credit if the conflict ends well, and both would look bad if it does not, he predicted.

“They’re tied together with the success or failure of Iran. It doesn’t really separate one versus the other, at least I don’t think that’s how the electorate will see it,” Sununu said.

Price and Peoples write for the Associated Press. Peoples reported from New York. AP writers Matthew Lee in Washington, Bill Barrow in Rocky Mount, N.C., and Thomas Beaumont in Grapevine, Texas, contributed to this report.

A federal judge in Rhode Island ruled on Tuesday that the Trump administration’s effort to dramatically change the criteria to get tens of millions of dollars in funding to aid homeless people was unlawful.

Several nonprofits filed a lawsuit last year accusing the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development of changing the rules for receiving $75 million to build housing for homeless families and individuals. The plaintiffs accused the Trump administration of issuing a new Notice of Funding Opportunity, or NOFO, for the Continuum of Care program to better align with its social policies.

U.S District Judge Mary McElroy, nominated by President Trump, said the department’s “slapdash imposition of political whims” was unlawful and she ordered it to scrap the new policy.

“Once again, this Court is faced with a case in which an executive agency has made a last-minute decision to make major, disruptive changes to grants within its purview, all for the express purpose of accomplishing the current administration’s policy objectives,” McElroy said in her ruling that the NOFO violated the Administrative Procedure Act, a law governing how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.

A spokesperson for HUD did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Advocates for plaintiffs welcomed the ruling.

“For more than three decades, the federal government has supported housing providers and communities through HUD’s programs to help people experiencing homelessness move into stable housing,” Skye Perryman, president and chief executive of Democracy Forward, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, said in a statement. “We are pleased that the court has stopped the Trump-Vance administration from holding life-saving funding hostage to a political agenda.”

Ann Oliva, chief executive of the National Alliance to End Homelessness, said the ruling was “a victory for people across this nation who have overcome homelessness and stabilized in HUD’s permanent housing programs.”

“Today’s news reinforces a fundamental truth: that the work to end homelessness is not partisan, and never should be interfered with for political means,” Oliva said in a statement.

Plaintiffs argued the Trump administration was aiming to upend polices in place for decades to satisfy its political considerations, including whether jurisdictions “support sanctuary protections, harm reduction practices, or inclusive policies for transgender people.”

The Alliance and the Women’s Development Corporation argued that HUD lacked the authority to make the changes, adding that the new award process was “shockingly unlawful” and would “irreparably injure qualified applicants for these funds and the communities they serve.”

In its court filings, HUD argued the new criteria was an effort “to ensure the availability of funding to protect our Nation’s most vulnerable individuals and families from the trauma of homelessness while simultaneously promoting self-sufficiency.”

“Defendants acted reasonably and prudently because the NOFO conditions, focusing on public safety, cooperation with law enforcement and prohibitions on illegal drug use, are sufficiently related to the funding goals of self-sufficiency and reduction of trauma,” HUD wrote.

Casey writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — TMZ built its brand tracking celebrities. Now it’s turning its attention to Congress, chasing down paparazzi-style shots of lawmakers on break from Washington during a record-long partial government shutdown.

Videos and photos posted by the tabloid website showing lawmakers in airports, Las Vegas and even Disney World have racked up millions of views and fueled a growing backlash. With travel disruptions persisting and some federal workers going without pay, pressure is mounting on Congress to cut short its regularly scheduled recess.

Beyond TMZ, President Trump also wants lawmakers to come back, even hinting he might invoke rarely used powers to call Congress into session.

Still, it’s not clear what a return would accomplish, with the 45-day partial government shutdown at a deeper impasse than ever. The Senate reached a bipartisan funding deal last week, but House Speaker Mike Johnson rejected it, and House Republicans passed their own version before heading for the exits.

“I’m not sure that we’d come,” Democratic Sen. Chris Coons said Monday when asked about members being called back. “And I’m not sure that there would be any difference from what’s happened so far.”

On recess — and on camera

As lawmakers headed out of Washington last week, the celebrity-gossip outlet TMZ put out a call.

“TMZ is on the hunt for photos of politicians on vacay as TSA officers suffer!” the outlet said in a social media post.

The focus from TMZ — an outlet known more for capturing unflattering footage of celebrities than digging into the nuances of federal policy — was the latest example of how politics is being fueled by viral images and populist sentiment.

Videos quickly followed, showing senators moving through airports — often attempting to shield themselves from cameras — with provocative headlines layered on top. The clips racked up millions of views.

The outlet didn’t stop there. Photos of lawmakers on vacation soon followed, including viral images of Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham at Disney World with captions such as: “Lindsey Graham lives it up at Disney World during the partial government shutdown!”

Graham said that he had been in Florida for a meeting with Trump administration officials and had made a stop at Disney World with a friend. He also blamed Democrats for the shutdown.

Another widely shared post showed Democratic Rep. Robert Garcia in Las Vegas.

“Actually I don’t mind what TMZ is doing here,” Garcia posted in response, adding that he was visiting his father. “Like I said a few days ago, Speaker Mike Johnson should have never sent us all home.”

The effort grew out of frustration, said TMZ executive producer Harvey Levin, after the outlet interviewed a TSA worker struggling due to missed paychecks during the shutdown.

“It outraged us so much we wanted to use our platforms to show how Congress — Dems AND Republicans — have betrayed us,” Levin said in a statement.

He added that lawmakers shouldn’t expect the coverage to end anytime soon.

“Several months ago we decided to amp up our presence and our voice,” Levin said. “We now have a producer and a photog circulating in the Capitol, showing the intersection between politics and pop culture.”

Pressure mounts on Congress to return

The backlash playing out online is fueling other pressure as well. Trump has called on Congress to return. He spoke with Senate Majority Leader John Thune on Sunday and Monday, and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said he has urged leadership to cancel recess “repeatedly.”

“He’ll host a big Easter dinner here at the White House if Congress will come back,” she added.

So far, Republican leadership has not blinked, raising questions about how much pressure Trump will ultimately apply — and whether he would be willing to concede ground to Democrats to end the shutdown.

Unions are adding to that pressure.

“To leave Washington while tens of thousands of workers are going without pay shows a clear lack of respect for the essential employees tasked with keeping our nation safe,” said Hydrick Thomas, president of the American Federation of Government Employees TSA Council 100.

Although vacation snapshots have stirred outrage, recess is also an opportunity for lawmakers to reconnect with constituents back home. Some hold town hall events. Others go on trips abroad, such as joining a delegation to Taiwan.

Why the funding impasse won’t be easy to solve

Even if lawmakers return to Washington, there isn’t an easy way out of the funding impasse.

Senators already labored for weeks to try to find agreement on Democrats’ demand that any funding for the Department of Homeland Security come with restrictions on how federal immigration agents conduct enforcement. In vote after failed vote, Democrats showed they wouldn’t budge.

As the partial government shutdown extended to the longest in U.S. history, the Senate settled on a last-ditch effort to fund most of DHS while leaving out money for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Border Patrol.

But that deal was rejected by Johnson in the House, who instead pushed through a bill to extend DHS funding on a party-line vote. The collapse of the bipartisan agreement has soured the mood for negotiations and left lawmakers pointing fingers.

“There’s no point in calling us back because that was the result of a conscious choice by the Republican majority,” said Coons, a Delaware Democrat.

Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, told Fox News on Tuesday that the House can come back “on a moment’s notice,” but “the Senate has to do their job and help us on this heavy lift.”

But Thune, a South Dakota Republican, has been clear that he sees no way to get a DHS funding bill through the Senate with its 60-vote threshold for advancing legislation, known as the filibuster.

Still, Thune is coming under renewed pressure to find a way past the funding impasse — with calls from Trump and some conservatives to get rid of the filibuster.

That’s unlikely to work either because of a handful of Republican senators who have made it clear they won’t vote to change the Senate’s rules. Still, Trump told reporters Sunday night that, “They should terminate the filibuster and they should vote.”

Sen. Mike Lee, a Utah Republican, agreed. He said on social media that he thinks one of the only options for the Senate is to “nuke the filibuster and pass everything.”

“Inaction is unacceptable,” he added.

Cappelletti and Groves write for the Associated Press. AP writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

NASHVILLE, N.C. — Ricky Brinkley has lived in rural North Carolina nearly all of his 65 years, and he likes it “out in the county,” past the street lights and bustle of the small towns that carpet the landscape.

But the former truck driver can feel left out when elections roll around in this battleground state.

“People don’t come out like they should and ask you how you feel about things,” Brinkley said while he manned the counter at his daughter’s beauty supply store down the street from the Nashville courthouse. “You want somebody to vote, but you don’t want to do nothing to get the vote. No, it don’t work that way.”

Brinkley is among the rural Black residents who Democrats have often failed to mobilize as they try to dent Republican advantages here. It’s an urgent demographic puzzle for the party, which is normally strong with Black voters but tends to fall short in rural areas.

Success could help former Gov. Roy Cooper win a hotly contested U.S. Senate race this year and tilt the balance of power in Washington. It could also reshape presidential elections, providing Democrats with a wider path to the White House.

“People want to look at the word ‘rural’ in North Carolina and equate it to the word ‘white,’” said state party chair Anderson Clayton, a 28-year-old who won her job three years ago promising to expand the party beyond cities. “In my vision of a Democratic Party, when you talk about reaching out to rural voters, you are talking about rural Black voters.”

The Rev. James Gailliard, a former state lawmaker who leads a large Black congregation in Rocky Mount, put it even more bluntly.

“You don’t win this state in Durham,” Gailliard said. “You win it in the east.”

It’s about more than Cooper’s Senate bid

North Carolina is known for the university-heavy Research Triangle that includes Durham, Raleigh and Chapel Hill, along with Charlotte’s banking hub. But it also includes large swaths of small towns and rural areas where Democrats have lost ground in recent decades.

That’s not just because of white voters realigning with Republicans. It’s also because Black voters who lean Democratic don’t vote as often as their urban counterparts. Those rural Black voters are concentrated east of the triangle, extending along winding state highways through small towns, flatlands and farmland toward the Atlantic coastline.

Cooper, 68, won two terms as governor and four terms as state attorney general. However, Republicans control the state courts and the legislature, and they’ve redrawn the congressional map to expand their advantage in the U.S. House. Donald Trump carried the state for Republicans all three times he ran for the White House.

A native of rural Nash County, Cooper already in recent months held roundtable sessions with Black farmers, business owners and civic leaders in eastern North Carolina, along with students from North Carolina A&T University, a historically Black school that draws students from across the state. His campaign promises a statewide organizing effort before November.

Gailliard wants a more intentional effort

But Gailliard wants more.

The founding pastor at Word Tabernacle Church, Gailliard was among the Black state lawmakers who lost seats after Republican-led redistricting. He said regaining ground will require neighborhood-level organizing and investment from national Democrats, something he struggled to get from Kamala Harris’ 2024 presidential campaign.

“I couldn’t get any traction,” Gailliard recalled. “I begged them to bring her to Rocky Mount. I said, ‘Listen, Rocky Mount is the gateway to the East. If we crack Rocky Mount, we’ve cracked the East.’ Could not convince them to come. Two weeks later, guess who’s in Rocky Mount? Donald Trump.”

The Harris campaign sent former President Bill Clinton to the area instead.

Gailliard said Cooper needs people like him to get elected.

“Roy is a great friend, and I’m gonna run my butt off to help him in every way, but I’m not banking on his coattails,” Gailliard said. “I’m going to do the opposite. I’m going to grow coattails for him.”

The state party tries to fill gaps

Clayton, the state party chair, said the national party and its donors haven’t prioritized North Carolina early enough in recent cycles.

She said she’s relied mostly on local money to finance 25 full-time staffers, more than three times what the state party had heading into the 2022 midterms.

Bertie County Democratic chairwoman Camille Taylor, whose hometown of Powellsville has fewer than 200 residents, said she’s felt the shift.

She speaks regularly with a field organizer in nearby Greenville, the city closest to the northeastern counties with large proportions of Black residents. But she said it’s especially difficult to persuade rural voters to care about voting beyond the presidency, even though she tells them “these are the races and the people that you’re going to interact with more.”

Democrats have recruited candidates in all 170 legislative districts — two are Democratic-aligned independents — and every U.S. House district. State Supreme Court Justice Anita Earls, a noted civil rights attorney and Black woman, is running statewide for reelection.

Gailliard said he’s identified a few hundred nonprofits, neighborhood associations and other groups that can do issue-orientated work in his district as the election approaches. He wants to match each of them to specific precincts, routing money for them to reach voters and persuade them to vote.

He wants volunteers to get training from Democratic and left-leaning organizations rather than have the outsiders themselves knocking on rural Black voters’ doors.

“We can’t have 21-year-old recent college graduates from Utah knocking doors at $22 an hour in the hood,” Gailliard said. “That just does not work. They’re not a trusted messenger.”

Marginal voting changes add up

About 2 in 10 North Carolina voters in the 2024 and 2020 presidential elections were Black, according to AP VoteCast, as well as in the 2022 Senate election.

Roughly 4 in 10 Black voters in North Carolina’s last presidential election said they live in small towns or rural communities, similar to the share who said they live in the suburbs. Only about one-quarter reported living in urban areas.

Small shifts in persuasion matter, particularly when races are close. In 2008, Barack Obama became the last Democratic presidential candidate to win North Carolina, by a margin of just 14,000 votes out of 4.3 million votes cast.

Voter turnout between the 2020 and 2024 elections declined more in North Carolina counties that have larger Black populations.

Counties where Black voters make up about 30% to 40% of the electorate saw the biggest drop, with turnout falling by more than 3 percentage points. Counties with smaller Black populations saw more modest declines of about 1 percentage point. Overall, turnout remains higher in counties with fewer Black voters.

An old Cooper schoolmate just wants to be asked

Gailliard said Democrats cannot underestimate how much it means for someone to simply get asked for their vote.

“Black and rural voters are not transactional,” he said. “They are relational.”

Back in Nashville at the beauty supply store, Brinkley agreed.

“You get to be a big wheel, and you can forget where you came from,” Brinkley said. “I ain’t gonna say Roy forgot. He’s a hometown guy, so to speak, but I don’t expect to see him out here walking.”

Brinkley made it clear that if he votes, it would be for Cooper and other Democrats — but only if he votes.

“I could. I could. I may vote,” he said. “There’s just so much going on.”

Barrow and Sweedler write for the Associated Press. Sweedler reported from Washington. AP journalist Linley Sanders in Washington contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Wednesday became the first sitting president to attend oral arguments at the Supreme Court, inserting himself directly into a high-stakes legal battle over one of the most consequential orders of his administration.

Trump arrived at the court Wednesday morning by limousine for arguments over whether the president has the authority to effectively rewrite the Constitution by ending birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are in the country unlawfully or temporarily.

In the run-up to Wednesday’s arguments, Trump suggested that Supreme Court justices appointed by Republicans who have ruled against his agenda are “so stupid.”

“Some people would call it stupidity; some people will call it disloyal,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday.

“Dumb Judges and Justices will not a great Country make!” the president wrote on Truth Social on Monday.

The unprecedented appearance highlights how high Trump believes the stakes are, according to Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA.

“It’s not clear why Trump is attending,” Winkler said. “Maybe he is just interested in the unusual drama of a Supreme Court argument. Or perhaps he is trying to intimidate the justices, like the scene in ‘The Godfather Part II’ where the mob boss shows up at a hearing to scare the witness into recanting his testimony.”

Regardless, Trump’s presence probably won’t change any minds on the bench, Winkler said.

The justices prize their independence, including many who share Trump’s judicial philosophy. Still, it will likely change the mood, Winkler said — most hearings are quiet and academic.

The birthright citizenship order, which Trump signed on the first day of his second term, is a keystone of his administration’s broad immigration crackdown.

Trump has framed the policy as a necessary step to curb what he describes as abuse of the immigration system.

“Birthright Citizenship is not about rich people from China, and the rest of the World, who want their children, and hundreds of thousands more, FOR PAY, to ridiculously become citizens of the United States of America. It is about the BABIES OF SLAVES!”

Every lower court that has considered the issue has found the order illegal and prevented it from taking effect. A definitive ruling by the nation’s highest court is expected by early summer.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

LONDON — President Trump has said he is strongly considering pulling the U.S. out of NATO, ratcheting up his criticism of European allies and exposing a wider rift in the transatlantic alliance — this time over America’s war alongside Israel against Iran.

While Trump’s talk of a possible NATO pullout dates back years, the comments to Britain’s Telegraph newspaper, published Wednesday, were among the clearest and most disparaging yet — suggesting the fracture has deepened perhaps to a point of no return.

Asked whether he would reconsider U.S. membership in the alliance after the war on Iran ends, Trump replied: “Oh yes, I would say (it’s) beyond reconsideration.”

Contacted by The Associated Press, NATO did not provide an immediate comment.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, asked about the comment, said Britain was “fully committed to NATO” and called it “the single most effective military alliance the world has ever seen.”

Many European leaders have felt political pressure over the war, which faces opposition in their countries and has sent petroleum prices soaring as Iran has effectively shut the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway between Iran and Oman through which about one-fifth of the world’s oil passes.

“Whatever the pressure on me and others, whatever the noise, I am going to act in the British national interest in all the decisions I make,” Starmer said Wednesday.

Long-simmering tensions within the alliance have bubbled up again over the war. As energy prices have spiked, Trump has been desperate to get countries to send their ships to the Strait. He’s called his NATO allies “cowards,” pulling at any rhetorical lever he can to get help with the fallout of a war that no ally was consulted on or asked to take part in.

For years, Trump has berated America’s European allies, urging them to assume greater responsibility for their own security and spend more on defense. He has argued that the U.S. has done more for them than the other way around.

A U.S. pullout would essentially spell the end of NATO, which flourished for decades under American leadership.

On Truth Social on Tuesday, Trump lashed out at countries “like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran,” and suggested they buy U.S. oil or go to the Strait of Hormuz themselves “and just take it.”

He also wants allies to help fix damage from the war that they had no part in starting.

The U.K. is working on plans that could help assuage Trump.

On Thursday, Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper will host a virtual meeting of 35 countries that have signed up to help ensure security for shipping in the Strait after the war. Starmer said military planners will also work on a postwar security plan for the strait.

The backdrop: NATO not on board to join U.S. in war

NATO is built on Article 5 of its founding treaty, which pledges that an attack on any one member will be met with a response from them all.

As the Iran war has spread, missiles and drones have been fired toward NATO member Turkey and a British military base on Cyprus, fueling speculation about what might prompt NATO to trigger its collective security guarantee and come to their rescue.

The alliance has not intervened or signaled any plan to. Secretary-General Mark Rutte — who has voiced support for Trump and America’s role in the alliance — has been focusing mostly on Russia’s war against Ukraine, which borders four NATO countries.

NATO operates uniquely by consensus. All 32 countries must agree for it to take decisions, so political priorities play a role. Even invoking Article 5 requires agreement among the allies. Turkey or the U.K. cannot trigger it alone.

In the Mideast war, Trump has bristled at the across-the-board rejection from European and other allies, and even rival China, to help secure the Strait of Hormuz.

Many European Union and NATO member country leaders have fumed since the war’s outset on Feb. 28 because they weren’t informed ahead of time, seen as a break with precedent.

Trump insisted he needed the element of surprise, and he spoke out about possible military action and visibly built up U.S. forces in the region in the run-up to the war.

Rising voices, and tougher action, from Europe over the Mideast war

European leaders have called for the war to stop and want the United States and Iran to return to negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear program, which America and Israel see as a threat.

The vocal opposition in Europe to Trump’s war against Iran has started to turn into action.

Spain — the most vocal critic in Europe — on Monday said it closed its airspace to U.S. planes involved in the Iran war.

Early last month, France agreed to let the U.S. Air Force use a base in southern France after receiving a “full guarantee” from the United States that planes not involved in carrying out strikes against Iran would land there.

Other countries have spoken out against it: Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Germany’s largely ceremonial president, last week called the aggression against Iran a “dangerous mistake” in violation of international law.

U.S. relations with Europe had already soured in recent months over Trump’s call for Greenland — a semiautonomous territory of stalwart NATO ally Denmark — to become part of the United States, prompting many EU countries to rally behind Copenhagen.

Lawless and Keaten write for the Associated Press. Keaten reported from Geneva. AP writer Lorne Cook in Brussels contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear President Trump’s claim that he has the power to revise the Constitution and to end birthright citizenship for babies born in this country to parents who were here unlawfully or temporarily.

Trump proposed this potentially far-reaching change in an executive order. It has been blocked by judges across the country and has never been in effect.

His lawyers contend they seek to correct a 160-year misunderstanding about the Constitution’s promise that “all persons born” in this country are deemed to be citizens.

The president’s executive order “restores the original meaning of the citizenship clause” and would deny “on a prospective basis only” citizenship to the “children of temporarily present aliens and illegal aliens,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in his appeal.

But the first hurdle for Trump and his lawyers may concern the powers of the president.

In February, the court blocked Trump’s sweeping worldwide tariffs on the grounds the Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to impose import taxes.

By comparison, the president has even less power to set the rules for U.S. citizenship. The Constitution gives Congress the power to “establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”

After the Civil War, Congress adopted a civil rights act in 1866 that said “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, including Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States … of every race and color.”

To make sure that rule stood over time, it was added to the Constitution in the 14th Amendment. Its opening line says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

In 1898, a conservative Supreme Court upheld that rule and affirmed the citizenship of Wong Kim Ark. He was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who later returned to China.

“The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory,” the court said. “In clear words and in manifest intent, [it] includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color.”

In 1952, when Congress revised the immigration laws, it added the same provision without controversy. Lawmakers set multiple rules for deciding disputes over American parents who live abroad, but the first rule was simple and undisputed.

“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” the law said.

Critics say Trump’s plan could replace a clear and simple rule with a confusing and complicated one. States would have to look into the history and legal status of a newborn’s parents to decide whether they met the new qualifications.

Until now, a valid birth certificate had been sufficient to establish a person’s U.S. citizenship.

Last week, Trump was urging Senate Republicans to pass a new election law that would require millions of Americans to present a birth certificate as proof of their citizenship if they register to vote or move to a new state.

“Proving citizenship to vote is a no brainer,” the White House said.

This week, however, Trump’s lawyers are urging the court to rule that their birth in this country is not proof of their citizenship.

There is a “logical inconsistency” here,” said Eliza Sweren-Becker, a voting rights expert at the Brennan Center.

In the legal battle now before the court, the key disputed phrase is “subject to the jurisdiction.” That has been understood to mean that people within the United States are subject to the laws here, except for foreign diplomats and, for a time, Native Americans who lived on tribal reservations.

But Sauer contends it excludes newborns who are “not completely subject to the United States’ political jurisdiction” because their parents are in this country unlawfully.

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union called this a “radical rewriting” of the 14th Amendment, which says nothing about the parents of a newborn child.

If upheld, this order could apply to “tens of thousands of children born every month, “ they said, “devastating families around the country.” But worse yet, they said, the outcome “would cast a shadow over the citizenship of millions upon millions of Americans, going back generations.”

Some legal experts predict the court may rule narrowly and reject Trump’s executive order because it conflicts with federal immigration laws. Such a ruling would be a defeat for Trump, but it could allow Congress in the future to adopt new provisions, including a limit for expectant mothers who enter this country to give birth.

WASHINGTON — Two-thirds of California voters disapprove of President Trump’s immigration policies and a majority believe those policies are discriminating against Latinos, according to a new poll.

Nearly half of the voters said they were concerned that they, a family member or a close friend could be detained because of Trump’s immigration policies.

The findings of the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll, released Wednesday, show that most Californians haven’t budged on their thoughts about the president’s approach to immigration since he returned to office. A poll last August similarly showed strong disapproval of the Trump administration’s approach to immigration enforcement.

The poll, which was conducted for the Los Angeles Times, showed the usual division along party lines when voters were asked whether they trust the U.S. Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, whether agents should wear masks while on duty, and whether Latinos are being discriminated against.

“This suggests that a significant number of voters see ICE infringement on the individual rights of the undocumented as also potentially leading to broader infringements on citizens’ rights,” said G. Cristina Mora, co-director of the institute and a sociology professor at UC Berkeley who studies race and immigration.

“Latino voters also seem to particularly worry about the way that racism is motivating current immigration practices,” she said, which is likely tied to the Supreme Court’s approval of immigration agents detaining people on the basis of their perceived race, ethnicity, language or occupation.

The overall disapproval among voters of Trump’s immigration policies — 64% — was down a bit from the August poll, in which 69% of respondents said they disapproved of how immigration enforcement was being carried out in California.

Republicans appear to be more approving of immigration policies now, with 86% saying they approve of Trump’s immigration policies — up from 79% approval of enforcement in California last August.

Mora said the tilt among California Republicans toward the Trump administration could be due, in part, to the framing of the question, which asked about “President Trump’s immigration policies.”

Any time Trump’s name is included, Republicans are more likely to agree with him, she said. The same effect is seen when asking about other issues, such as the economy.

Another factor could be the timing, Mora said. Last summer, federal agents conducted widespread raids in Los Angeles before moving on to target other cities, such as Chicago and Minneapolis.

Now that the administration has shifted away from some tactics that resulted in escalations of violence, Republicans are “falling in line” again with the administration, she said.

“My hunch is it was shocking,” Mora said of the immigration raids last summer. “Things have normalized because the tension is somewhere else.”

Seeking to de-escalate after two protesters were shot and killed by federal agents in Minneapolis, the president tapped his border advisor Tom Homan to take control of the immigration enforcement operation there.

Republican strategist Ford O’Connell said that’s why voters are more supportive.

“Tom Homan being in charge and publicly taking a much lighter touch and appearing reasonable to the average voter is why you’re seeing this turnaround,” he said.

But Democratic strategist Maria Cardona said that that’s wishful thinking and that ICE’s approach hasn’t substantially changed.

“It only went down five points,” she said, referring to the disapproval of Trump’s policies. “That’s not the American people being on the side of the administration — it’s that they’re not seeing American citizens murdered on their screens every day.”

One question saw strong division among Republicans: Should immigration agents be allowed to enter the homes of suspected undocumented immigrants without a judge-approved search warrant?

Among California Republicans, 45% said no, 38% said yes, and 17% said they have no opinion.

O’Connell said that’s because Republicans strongly value civil liberties, especially around property.

Republicans were more strongly in favor of a different policy, allowing ICE agents to wear masks while on duty. While 91% of Democrats opposed the policy, 68% of Republicans favored it.

In the August poll, 45% of Republicans said federal agents should be required to show clear identification when carrying out their work. That desire for identification doesn’t appear to extend to being fully identifiable by face.

O’Connell said Republicans understand the concern over agents increasingly being doxxed.

“The administration wants to find a happy medium there, whether it’s a nameplate or a badge number,” he said. “There is wiggle room.”

Nearly 7 in 10 respondents said they want state and local authorities to intervene when they witness unlawful detentions or excessive use of force by federal immigration agents.

Voters were also asked about their level of concern that they, a family member or a close friend could be detained because of Trump’s immigration policies. While 85% of Republicans said they are not too concerned or not concerned at all, 63% of Democrats said they are somewhat or very concerned.

Overall, nearly half of the respondents, 45%, said they are somewhat or very concerned. Among racial and ethnic groups, 62% of Latino voters, 46% of Black voters and 43% of Asian or Pacific Islander voters said they are somewhat or very concerned.

“The Latino community has always wanted to think the best of this country and they still do,” Cardona said. “Our positivism, our optimism, our hope in a better future is second to none. I think that’s what you’re seeing in those numbers, even as our community feels totally attacked.”

Mora said the high concern among Black residents is notable because, while most Black Californians aren’t immigrants themselves, Los Angeles has one of the largest concentrations of Blaxicans — the children of one Black parent and one Latino parent.

Beyond intermarriages, Black residents in California are also likely to have immigrant friends or neighbors, she said.

O’Connell took a different view: “I don’t think we can glean anything from it other than how one party focuses more on identity politics than the other.”

The Institute of Governmental Studies poll was completed online in English and Spanish from March 9 to 15 by 5,109 registered voters in California.

California built its tradition of open government — including for citizen boards that set the rules for such functions as automotive repair and security guard licensing — precisely to keep well-funded corporate interests in check. Lobbyists and special interests are constantly scheming to defeat the will of the majority. Now they are able to do more damage using artificial intelligence to simulate fake grassroots opposition to clean air measures, and they are surreptitiously using the identities of real people to deceive regulators.

Last June, the South Coast Air Quality Management District received more than 20,000 comments opposing a pair of clean air rules that would have prevented 2,500 premature deaths and 10,000 new cases of asthma. A February investigation by the Los Angeles Times revealed that those comments were submitted through CiviClick, a Washington-based AI-powered comment generation platform, orchestrated by a local political consultant with ties to the natural gas industry. When the district’s cybersecurity team reached out to a small sample of commenters to verify their identities, a majority of respondents said that they had not submitted the comments in their names.

Even so, the flood of fake comments seemingly worked. These rules, vehemently opposed by the natural gas industry, already watered down by the district to near-toothlessness, were ultimately rejected by the board — apparently overwhelmed by the flood of fake opposition to even the mildest effort to limit pollution from gas-burning appliances.

This Southern California campaign was not an isolated incident. A recent investigation by the San Francisco Chronicle also revealed that an industry front group used Speak4, a platform that advertises its use of AI, to submit dozens of comments regurgitating talking points from the fossil fuel industry in an attempt to weaken and delay clean air rules in the Bay Area. The scheme was exposed when 10 residents whose identities were used on these emails said they absolutely did not send them, calling the messages “forged.”

In both cases, organizations submitted emails and comments to regulators using real people’s identities without their knowledge or consent. This playbook has been employed in other states: CiviClick was used by fossil fuel companies to support a gas-pipeline-expansion project in North Carolina last year. When elected officials reached out to a few respondents to verify the messages, some constituents stated they had no knowledge of the emails sent under their names.

The opposition campaign to South Coast’s clean air rules was run by one of the state’s most powerful lobbying firms. Its client list includes Sempra, the parent company of SoCalGas, which opposed the clean air standards, which would have encouraged the sale of pollution-free heat pumps and threatened the utility’s business.

The industry front group using AI to undermine clean air rules in the Bay Area, Common Sense Coalition, also has ties to fossil fuel companies. Common Sense Coalition is a project of the Bay Area Council, a local business group that features members such as the Western States Petroleum Assn., Chevron, Martinez Refining Co. and Phillips 66.

The question of whether fossil fuel interests financed astroturf AI campaigns to defeat clean air rules should be answered through full investigations, which also ought to address whether the campaigns committed fraud and identity theft.

Californians deserve to know what is going on — how AI was used, where the lobbyists got the names and addresses they attached to the robo-messages and who paid for the deceptive campaigns. What’s most concerning is the use of actual residents’ identities — without their knowledge or consent — to oppose life-saving clean air standards.

Top law enforcement officials should be investigating — including Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, Los Angeles Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman and San Francisco Dist. Atty. Brooke Jenkins.
If the law on using a person’s name in a scheme to thwart action by a public agency is not clear enough to support prosecutions, then the law needs to be tightened up — and there is legislation, Senate Bill 1159, aiming to do that.

If this seems like a niche issue, I can assure you it is not. I spent 17 years at the helm of the California Air Resources Board, and I am deeply disturbed by the potential co-opting of public input processes using forgery through automated tools. Gathering public input is fundamental to the legitimacy of regulatory agencies.

We frequently heard from individuals or business associations concerned about the cost or burden of proposed regulation, and we worked hard to understand and tailor our rules to make them as streamlined and cost-effective as we could, while still making progress toward reducing the air and climate harms of a wide array of equipment and activities.

The destruction of meaningful public input through deceit isn’t just an environmental issue; it’s a democracy issue — and it demands urgent attention and accountability. California should draw the line to protect our democratic institutions.

Mary Nichols was chair of the California Air Resources Board, where she occupied the attorney seat. She is distinguished counsel to the Emmett Institute on Climate and Sustainability at UCLA Law School.