Politics Desk

In police circles, it’s known as the “LAPD lottery.”

Speaking at a city budget presentation this month, Police Chief Jim McDonnell said some officers have sought to “weaponize” the department’s disciplinary system to settle grievances, leaving city taxpayers on the hook for the legal bills.

Los Angeles has paid out at least $68.5 million over the last five years to resolve lawsuits filed by officers who claimed to be the victim of sexual harassment, racial discrimination or retaliation against whistleblowers, according to a Times analysis of payout data released by the city attorney’s office.

Skeptics inside the Los Angeles Police Department write off the claims as opportunistic officers trying to hit the jackpot, twisting paper trails created by the department’s much-maligned internal discipline system into the basis for lawsuits.

But the officers who sue and their labor attorneys argue the department’s continued failure to thoroughly investigate complaints or fix systemic issues leaves no other recourse.

Several recent civil trials have resulted in settlements or jury awards in the seven figures or more, including $11.5 million to a former K-9 officer who alleged colleagues spread false rumors about him and mocked his Samoan heritage. Dozens of other suits remain pending, likely leaving the city staring down more substantial payouts in the coming years.

The question of how to deal with the suits has emerged as one of the most pressing issues since McDonnell’s tenure as chief began in November. Mayor Karen Bass has said the city’s $1-billion budget deficit is at least partly driven by expensive legal payouts, as well as emergency response costs related to the Palisades fire and “downward national economic trends.”

Last year, the LAPD’s private fundraising arm gave $240,000 to hire an outside consultant to help the department analyze “the results of litigation to see if there are lessons to be learned from that.”

The consultant, Arif Alikhan, the department’s former director of constitutional policing, said he and his team are seeking to identify trends of risky behavior, improve tracking of problem employees and hold supervisors accountable for not addressing conduct that exposes the department to liability.

Part of the challenge, he said, is that cases take years to resolve, leading to lag time in awareness. “Then it kind of bubbles up and becomes a bigger issue and then you have multiple people suing.”

The city attorney’s office, which is responsible for defending the department against lawsuits, said in response to questions from The Times that cases are settled when “there could be a jury finding of liability, and when we can reach an agreement for a reasonable amount of money.”

“We will always do what is in the best interests of the city and continue to aggressively defend lawsuits—especially when plaintiffs’ attorneys try to make a fortune off of the City with unreasonable non-economic damages claims,” the city attorney’s office said in a statement. “Our office will aggressively defend against lawsuits that lack merit, as well as lawsuits in which the plaintiff’s attorney is making unreasonable demands for taxpayer dollars to resolve a case.”

The LAPD has long wrestled with costly litigation, and many claims by aggrieved officers are dismissed. But according to the data released to The Times, payouts for officer-driven lawsuits have increased recently: At least 13 verdicts or settlements worth $1 million or more have come since 2019, including nine in the last three years.

Beyond the cost to taxpayers, the public airing of workplace disputes can prove embarrassing to a department that has long fancied itself a spit-and-polish institution.

Take the Transit Services Division, where years of troubles and finger-pointing have led to a snarl of more than half a dozen lawsuits.

A former detective, Heather Rolland, received a $949,000 payout after she accused male colleagues of disparaging her for being injured on the job and of fostering a hostile work environment for women who worked in the division, which holds a lucrative contract with the county Metropolitan Transportation Authority to provide security on bus and train lines.

Among the male officials mentioned in her lawsuit is Randy Rangel, a former Transit Services sergeant, who filed his own claim against the city alleging he was retaliated against after reporting another officer for abusing his overtime pay. Last month, an L.A. County jury awarded him $4.5 million, which may still be challenged on appeal.

One of the witnesses who testified on Rangel’s behalf was his former captain, Brian Pratt, who also has a pending suit against the city. Pratt contends he was targeted with an anonymous personnel complaint after accusing a deputy chief of inappropriately using division staff to do nontransit work — a claim the city has denied in court filings.

The cycle of litigation continued with an internal affairs detective assigned to investigate Pratt. The detective alleged in a whistleblower claim that his bosses demanded unfavorable findings despite no evidence of wrongdoing. The lawsuit by Det. Hamilton Alvarenga also remains pending, with the city disputing his allegations.

Yet another Transit Services supervisor, Ashraf “Andy” Hanna, is pursuing legal action over what he alleged is a culture of anti-Arab discrimination. Hanna is also named as a defendant in several lawsuits, with co-workers accusing him of workplace hostility, which he disputes. One of his accusers, an officer named Natalie Bustamante, recently settled her sexual harassment lawsuit with the city for an undisclosed sum.

LAPD officers are supposed to report wrongdoing — or attempts to cover it up — to their supervisors, internal affairs or the Office of the Inspector General, which can investigate and potentially refer cases of misconduct to the chief for discipline. Those complaints are sealed from the public under state law, but the plaintiffs in several recent civil lawsuits alleged that the internal investigations tended to drag on unnecessarily and rarely led to punishment for the accused.

Attorney Matthew McNicholas, who has represented scores of officers in civil lawsuits, said he thinks that the growing payouts are a reflection of the city attorney’s hardball approach to civil litigation. This tough stance is costing taxpayers money by insisting on fighting cases even when it was clear they would lose in court, he said.

He pointed to the cases of Lou and Stacey Vince, a police couple who filed separate lawsuits against the department for retaliation and discrimination they faced while working in the San Fernando Valley. Lou Vince had alleged mistreatment after he returned from a work injury. In her claim, Stacey Vince said that after speaking up in her husband’s defense, she was denied a promotion and moved into a cramped office underneath the gym floor at the Police Academy with no furniture or Wi-Fi.

The couple, represented by McNicholas, received nearly $11 million in combined payouts.

“We tried to settle them both for low seven figures,” he said.

Joanna Schwartz, a UCLA law professor, said risk managers in L.A. and other cities should be looking for “policy changes or adjustments to staffing” after getting sued repeatedly.

“Best practices include internally investigating all allegations brought in lawsuits and then reviewing all the information that comes out during the course of discovery and trial,” Schwartz said.

The issue is not unique to the LAPD: Los Angeles County spent $150 million last year alone to defend the Sheriff’s Department from a slew of legal claims. And employment-related awards are only a fraction of the $358.8 million paid out in all LAPD lawsuits since 2019, including for traffic accidents, crackdowns on protesters and a botched fireworks detonation that leveled several city blocks and left dozens of residents displaced.

But the department’s handling of workplace complaints has drawn criticism on multiple fronts, including from the Los Angeles Police Protective League.

The union for rank-and-file officers, which sometimes helps members bring lawsuits, has cited the large verdicts as a sign senior LAPD officials are turning a blind eye to injustices in the workplace.

Last week, Jamie McBride, an outspoken union board member, filed a lawsuit in which he accused an assistant police chief of unfairly reprimanding him for speaking out about the LAPD’s grooming policy, the rules for how officers can keep their hair and mustaches.

McBride said in his suit that his remarks came during a union meeting in August 2023, when someone in the audience asked whether the department intended to change its rules to allow beards without a medical exemption, which is commonly granted to Black officers with skin conditions that make shaving painful.

McBride said he replied, “Well, I hope not ‘cause I think it looks like s—.”

He learned, according to his lawsuit, that that the department opened an investigation for what it deemed “racially discriminatory comments.”

McBride’s suit argues that his statement — “however controversial” — was made in the “context of protected union activity.”

The city has not yet filed a response in court to McBride’s claim. He didn’t respond to a message seeking comment.

McBride, who previously received $1.5 million after suing over alleged retaliation by his LAPD supervisors, is part of an internal work group looking at potential changes to the discipline system, along with Deputy Chief Michael Rimkunas, who runs the department’s professional standards bureau.

Rimkunas defended the department’s “thorough and comprehensive process” for addressing officer complaints, but said he is also pushing for “additional safeguards to be certain the complaint system is properly used.”

He said internal investigators are being more judicious about screening complaints before starting a formal inquiry. Cases involving apparent personality conflicts between employees are referred back to their supervisors for mediation “within weeks, even when the behavior may not have reached the level of misconduct,” he said.

It used to take up to a year, Rimkunas said, to “reach a point for potential intervention.”

SACRAMENTO — In the largest gathering of 2026 gubernatorial candidates to date, seven Democrats vying to lead California courted labor leaders on Monday, vowing to support pro-union agreements on housing and infrastructure projects, regulation of artificial intelligence, and government funding for university research.

Throughout most of the hourlong event, the hundreds of union members inside the Sacramento hotel ballroom embraced the pro-labor pledges and speeches that dominated the candidates’ remarks, though some boos rose from the crowd when former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa strayed from the other Democrats on stage.

Villaraigosa was the only candidate to raise objections when asked if he would support providing state unemployment benefits to striking workers, saying it would depend on the nature and length of the labor action. Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2023 vetoed a bill that would have provided that coverage, saying it would make the state’s unemployment trust fund “vulnerable to insolvency.”

The Monday night event was part of a legislative conference held by the California Federation of Labor Unions and the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, two of the most influential labor organizations in the state capital.

Villaraigosa was joined on stage by former state Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins, former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra, Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, former Rep. Katie Porter of Irvine, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and former state Controller Betty Yee. All are running to replace Newsom, who is serving his second and final term as governor.

Throughout most of the event, the candidates were peppered with yes-or-no questions, answering with the wave of a red flag for “no” or green flag for “yes.”

The event was not without its frosty moments, including when the candidates were asked whether, as governor, they would be “pragmatic and stop targeting California’s oil and gas industry in ways that jeopardize union jobs and force us to rely on dirtier imported energy.”

Some of the candidates raised their green flags timidly. California’s Democratic leaders, including Newsom and top state lawmakers, have been major proponents of transitioning to renewable energy and imposing more restrictions on the state’s oil and gas industry.

“We all want a clean environment going forward,” Yee said, “but it cannot be on the backs of workers.”

Villaraigosa, in remarks after the event, said he challenged the idea of jumping into electrification too quickly, which would affect union jobs and increase the cost of utilities and energy across the state.

“Closing down refineries, telling people to get rid of their gas stove and gas water heater is just poppycock,” he said.

Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Labor Federation, praised the Democratic candidates for showing strong support for unionized workers. She’s hopeful that each would be more receptive to some pivotal union concerns than Newsom, such as the regulation of artificial intelligence, a major threat to union jobs, she said.

“When we’re talking about things like regulating AI — we can’t even get a conversation out of Gavin Newsom about any regulation — I think that was, that was a key thing. They all threw up their green flag,” Gonzalez said.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris, who is weighing a run for governor, declined an invitation to address the conference.

The State Building and Construction Trades Council represents hundreds of thousands of workers in the state, including bricklayers, ironworkers and painters, among many others.

The Labor Federation is a formidable power in California politics and policy, expected to help coordinate the spending of as much as $40 million by unions in next year’s election. The federation is an umbrella group for about 1,300 unions that represent around 2.3 million workers in the public and private sectors.

The organization has backed all of the gubernatorial candidates in various prior races, although it opposed Villaraigosa in the 2005 mayor’s race and supported Newsom over Villaraigosa in the 2018 gubernatorial race.

The latter decision was driven by the arc Villaraigosa has taken from his roots as a union leader to a critic of Los Angeles’ teachers union and supporter of charter schools and reform of teacher-tenure rules.

Times staff writer Phil Willon contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Office said Tuesday that President Trump’s tariff policies will reduce state revenues in California by $16 billion through next year.

Despite personal income tax and corporate tax receipts in the state coming in $6.8 billion above projections through April, the Newsom administration is predicting that overall revenues will be lower than they could have been from January 2025 through June 2026 because of the economic impact of Trump’s tariffs.

The governor released the new information, which his team dubbed the “Trump Slump,” on the eve of the presentation of his revised 2025-26 state budget plan, seeking to blame the president for California’s expected revenue shortfall. His office has not released any additional figures about the state budget.

Newsom is expected on Wednesday to project a deficit for California in the year ahead with Medi-Cal costs exceeding expectations, including his signature policy to provide free healthcare coverage to low-income undocumented immigrants. The new shortfall comes in addition to $27.3 billion in financial remedies, including $16.1 billion in cuts and a $7.1 billion withdrawal from the state’s rainy day fund, that lawmakers and the governor already agreed to make in 2025-26.

The deficit marks the third year in a row that Newsom and lawmakers have been forced to reduce spending after dedicating more money to programs than the state has available to spend. Poor projections, the ballooning cost of Democratic policy promises and a reluctance to make long-term sweeping cuts have added to the deficit at a time when the governor regularly touts California’s place as the fourth largest economy in the world.

Trump implemented a series of tariffs on all imported goods, higher taxes on products from goods from Mexico, Canada and China, and specific levies on products and materials such as autos and aluminum, in April. The president has backed down from some of his tariffs, but Newsom alleges that the policies and economic uncertainty will lead to higher unemployment, inflation, lower GDP projections and less capital gains revenue for California.

California filed a lawsuit last month arguing that Trump lacks the authority to impose tariffs on his own. On Tuesday, the state said it will seek a preliminary injunction to freeze the tariffs in federal court.

To Los Angeles City Council members searching desperately for cuts amid a budget crisis, the Fire Department’s emergency incident technicians are “drivers” whose main role is chauffeuring battalion chiefs to emergencies.

But LAFD officials say the position is much more than that. Emergency incident technicians are firefighters who play a key role in coordinating the response to fires, and losing them would put lives at risk, according to LAFD interim Chief Ronnie Villanueva.

“This is going to come back and bite us. This is not a matter of them just being a driver. It is not a driver. You have to just take that out of your minds of transporting someone somewhere,” Villanueva said, addressing the City Council’s budget committee at a hearing on Thursday.

Five months after the Palisades fire destroyed thousands of homes and prompted questions about whether the Fire Department was equipped to fight such a massive blaze, the budget committee moved forward with a recommendation to cut the emergency incident technician positions.

Of the 42 positions, 27 are currently filled. Those firefighters would not lose their jobs but would be reassigned, saving the city more than $7 million in the next fiscal year and about $10 million every year after that, according to City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo.

The city is facing a nearly $1-billion budget shortfall largely due to rising personnel costs, soaring legal payouts and a slowdown in the local economy. Mayor Karen Bass’ 2025-26 budget proposal, which suggested laying off more than 1,600 city employees, did not include reassigning the emergency incident technicians.

The budget committee, which stressed that the overall Fire Department budget is increasing, also recommended nixing Bass’ plan for creating a new unit within the department that would have added 67 employees to address issues stemming from the homelessness crisis.

At Thursday’s budget hearing, Councilmember Tim McOsker, who has two children who are firefighters, argued for cutting the emergency incident technician position, calling it “basically an aide.”

When Villanueva asked McOsker to put a cost on a firefighter’s life, McOsker said, “Invaluable.”

“I can say the same thing about very many of the 1,300 positions we’re cutting, because we’re also going to not be doing sidewalks, streets, curbs, gutters, tree trimming, changing out lights, making our communities safe,” McOsker added. “The reality is we have to balance a budget.”

The budget committee has sent its initial recommendations to Chief Legislative Analyst Sharon Tso, the City Council’s top policy advisor, who on Friday will present the committee with a full menu of strategies for cutting costs while preserving as many services as possible. The committee is then expected to finalize its recommendations and send the proposed budget to the full council, which must approve a final budget by the end of the month.

On the way to a scene, a “command team” consisting of a chief and an emergency incident technician “might be responsible to provide direction to the rescue of a trapped firefighter or civilians, firefighter tracking, and handle the risk management of a rapidly escalating incident,” Capt. Erik Scott, an LAFD spokesperson, said in a statement.

“The more complex the incident, the greater the need for Emergency Incident Technicians to facilitate emergency incident mitigation,” Scott added, with the types of incidents including “structure fires, brush fires, multi-casualty incidents, earthquakes, train collisions, building collapses, active shooter, airport and port emergencies etc.”

Gregg Avery, who retired last year as a battalion chief after 37 years with the LAFD, said that during his career, emergency incident technicians were called aides, then staff assistants. But Avery thought of them more as partners. The four EITs who worked for him often helped him with strategic decisions, and he encouraged them to question his decisions and offer advice.

“The EIT happens to drive the car. But to call them a driver is a bit demeaning and a bit minimizing,” he said.

While an EIT drives a battalion chief to a fire or other emergency, both work the radios to develop strategies for tackling the situation, according to Avery and a video produced by the LAFD. They communicate with fire commanders, firefighters on the scene, police officers and agencies such as the Department of Water and Power and the U.S. Forest Service.

At the scene, they work with the incident commander to keep track of firefighters and other personnel — a crucial role in chaotic situations when forgetting a single firefighter’s location could be fatal, both Villanueva and Avery said.

But at the Thursday budget hearing, Villanueva struggled to articulate what EITs do when they aren’t responding to scenes.

“They visit fire stations and they deliver mail. They talk about the current events. If there’s any questions they need to be asked … the EIT will assist with those. They do staffing,” Villanueva said.

According to Avery, EITs act as liaisons between firefighters and battalion chiefs. Since they are firefighters themselves and members of the labor union, they can relate to the rank-and-file, Avery said.

The EIT positions were cut once before — in 2010, during another major budget crunch in the Great Recession. Since then, the department has been adding them back.

Avery remembers working without an EIT after the cuts.

“Emergency operations were profoundly different and not as good,” he said.

President Trump has spent the first major overseas trip of his second administration — next stop Wednesday in Qatar — beating back allegations that he was personally profiting from foreign leaders by accepting a $400-million luxury airliner from the Gulf state’s royal family.

Trump has bristled at the notion that he should turn down such a gift, saying he would be “stupid” to do so and that Democrats were “World Class Losers” for suggesting it was not only wrong but also unconstitutional.

But Democrats were hardly alone in criticizing the arrangement as Trump prepared for broad trade discussions in Doha, the Qatari capital.

Several top Republicans in Congress have expressed concerns about the deal, including that the plane would be a security risk. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) on Tuesday said there were “lots of issues associated with that offer which I think need to be further talked about,” and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), another member of the Republican leadership team, said that Trump and the White House “need to look at the constitutionality” of the deal and that she would be “checking for bugs” on the plane, a clear reference to fears that Qatar may see the jetliner as an intelligence asset.

Criticism of the deal has even arisen among the deep-red MAGA ranks. In an online post echoed by other right-wing influencers in Trump’s orbit, loyalist Laura Loomer wrote that while she would “take a bullet for Trump,” the Qatar deal would be “a stain” on his administration.

The broad outrage in some ways reflected the stark optics of the deal, which would provide Trump with the superluxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet — known as the “palace in the sky” — for free, to be transferred to his personal presidential library upon his departure from office.

Accepting a lavish gift from the Persian Gulf nation makes even some stolid Trump allies queasy because of Qatar’s record of abuses against its Shiite Muslim minority and its funding of Hamas, the militant group whose attack on Israel touched off a prolonged war in the region.

Critics have called the deal an out-and-out bribe for future influence by the Qatari royal family, and one that would clearly come due at some point — raising serious questions around the U.S.’ ability to act with its own geopolitical interests in mind in the future, rather than Qatar’s.

Trump and Qatar have rejected that framing but have also deflected questions about what Qatar expects to receive in return for the jet.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, in response to detailed questions from The Times, said in a statement that Trump “is compliant with all conflict-of-interest rules, and only acts in the best interests of the American public — which is why they overwhelmingly re-elected him to this office, despite years of lies and false accusations against him and his businesses from the fake news media.”

Leavitt has previously said it was “ridiculous” for the media to “suggest that President Trump is doing anything for his own benefit,” because he “left a life of luxury and a life of running a very successful real estate empire for public service, not just once, but twice.”

Ali Al-Ansari, media attache at the Qatari Embassy in Washington, did not respond to a request for comment.

Beyond the specific concern about Qatar potentially holding influence over Trump, the jet deal also escalated deeper concerns among critics that Trump, his family and his administration are using their political influence to improperly enrich themselves more broadly — including through the creation of a $Trump cryptocurrency meme coin and a promised Washington dinner for its top investors.

Experts and other critics have for years accused Trump of violating constitutional constraints on the president and other federal officials accepting gifts, or “emoluments,” from foreign states without the express approval of Congress.

During Trump’s first term, allegations that he was flouting the law and using his office to enrich himself — including by maintaining an active stake in his golf courses and former Washington hotel while foreign dignitaries seeking to curry favor with him racked up massive bills there — went all the way to the Supreme Court before being dismissed as moot after he’d been voted out of office.

Since Trump’s return to office, however, concerns over his monetizing the nation’s highest office and the power and influence that come with it have exploded once more — and from disparate corners of the political landscape.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), left, speaks with Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) during a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security oversight hearing on May 8, 2025, on Capitol Hill in Washington.

(Julia Demaree Nikhinson / Associated Press)

In a speech last month on the Senate floor, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) alleged dozens of examples of Trump and others in his family and administration misusing their positions for personal gain — what Murphy called “mind-blowing corruption” in Trump’s first 100 days.

Murphy mentioned, among other examples, the meme coin and dinner; corporations under federal investigation donating millions to Trump’s inaugural fund and those investigations being halted soon after he took office; reports that Trump has sold meetings with him at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida for millions of dollars; and Donald Trump Jr.’s creation of a private Washington club with million-dollar dues and promises of interactions with administration officials.

Murphy also noted Trump’s orders to fire inspectors general and other watchdogs meant to keep an eye out for corruption and pay-to-play tactics in the federal government, and his scaling back of laws meant to discourage it, such as the Foreign Agents Registration Act, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Corporate Transparency Act.

“Donald Trump wants to numb this country into believing that this is just how government works. That he’s owed this. That every president is owed this. That government has always been corrupt, and he’s just doing it out in the open,” Murphy said. “But this is not how government works.”

When news of the Qatar jet deal broke, Murphy joined other Democratic colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in a statement denouncing it.

“Any president who accepts this kind of gift, valued at $400 million, from a foreign government creates a clear conflict of interest, raises serious national security questions, invites foreign influence, and undermines public trust in our government,” the senators wrote. “No one — not even the president — is above the law.”

Other lawmakers — from both parties — have also weighed in.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) blasted Trump’s acceptance of the plane as his “lastest con” and a clear attempt by the Qatari government to “curry favor” with him.

“This is why the emoluments clause is in the Constitution to begin with. It was put in there for a reason,” Schiff said. “And the reason was that the founding fathers wanted to make sure that any action taken by the president of the United States, or frankly any other person holding federal public office, wasn’t going to be influenced by getting some big gift.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said in an interview with MSNBC on Monday that he did not think it was a “good idea” for Trump to accept the jet — which he said wouldn’t “pass the smell test” for many Americans.

Experts and those further out on the American political spectrum agreed.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley School of Law and an expert in constitutional law, said the gift of the jet, “if it is to Trump personally,” clearly violates a provision that precludes the president from receiving any benefit from a foreign country, which America’s founders barred because they were concerned about “foreign governments holding influence over the president.”

Richard Painter, the top White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, said that Trump accepting the jet would be unconstitutional. And he scoffed at the ethics of doing business with a nation that has been criticized as having a bleak human rights record.

“After spending millions helping Hamas build tunnels and rockets, Qatar has enough to buy this emolumental gift for” Trump, Painter wrote on X. “But the Constitution says Congress must consent first.”

Painter criticized the White House justifying the deal by saying that Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi had “signed off” on it, given Bondi’s past work for the Qatari government, and said he knew of no precedent for a president receiving a lavish gift without the approval of Congress. He noted that Ambassador Benjamin Franklin received a diamond-encrusted snuff box from France’s King Louis XVI, but only with the OK from Congress.

Robert Weissman, co-president of the progressive nonprofit Public Citizen, said that it was unclear whether Trump would heed the cautionary notes coming from within his own party, but that the Republican-controlled Congress should nonetheless vote on whether the jet was a proper gift for him to receive.

“If the members of Congress think this is fine, then they can say so,” Weissman said, “and the voters can hold them accountable.”

Daily Wire co-founder Ben Shapiro, a prominent backer of Trump, criticized the deal on his podcast Monday, saying that Trump supporters would “all be freaking out” if Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, had accepted it.

“President Trump promised to drain the swamp,” Shapiro said. “This is not, in fact, draining the swamp.”

California became a national pioneer four years ago by passing a law to make ethnic studies a high school graduation requirement. But only months before the policy is to take effect, Gov. Gavin Newsom is withholding state funding — delaying the mandate as the course comes under renewed fire.

The pause has left school districts throughout the state in limbo nearly four years after the launch deadline was set. Beginning this fall, students entering 9th grade would have been the first class required to pass a one-semester class at some point during their high school years.

But under the 2021 law, the mandate to reach 5.8 million students does not take effect unless the state provides more money to pay for the course. The funding would cover the cost of materials and the teacher staffing and training that go along with adding a new field of study.

Newsom’s office, which will issue its May revision of next year’s proposed state budget Wednesday amid a tightening financial outlook, did not respond to questions about why he has not included funding for the ethnic studies requirement that he approved, praising it as an avenue to “teach students about the diverse communities that comprise California.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Finance answered on Newsom’s behalf.

“The budget doesn’t include funding that would trigger the ethnic studies graduation requirement,” said H.D. Palmer. As to the reason why, “the short answer is that the state has limited available ongoing resources.”

At the onset, $50 million in seed money was allocated statewide, but the law stated an additional unspecified amount would be needed in the future. State officials later set that amount at about $276 million. But several years have passed without state officials budgeting the funding.

As California’s more than 1,600 high schools wind down for the year, it is uncertain how many will offer the course in the fall. Some — including Los Angeles Unified, Santa Monica Unified and Alhambra Unified — will go forward with ethnic studies no matter what. Some of these districts, including L.A. Unified, already have their own ethnic studies graduation requirement.

Others — including Chino Valley Unified — will shelve the class until the law forces them to offer it.

Still others, such as Lynwood Unified, in south L.A. County, say they are deeply concerned about any wavering in the state’s commitment to the subject.

State funding would be “critically important for sustainability,” according to a Lynwood district statement. Without it, the school district is going to cancel the course and instead teach units of ethnic studies within other classes.

“We remain committed to the principles and purpose behind ethnic studies — ensuring our students see themselves and others reflected in the curriculum,” Lynwood Supt. Gudiel R. Crosthwaite said. “However, like many school districts across California, we are navigating the dual challenge of declining enrollment and insufficient state funding to support new course mandates.”

Renewed controversy

The current political environment complicates the launch of the ethnic studies requirement.

State officials were moving toward an ethnic studies requirement amid the nation’s racial reckoning after the 2020 murder of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police, the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement, and violent attacks on Asian Americans.

Many ethnic studies supporters believe that anti-racist teachings and exploring the history and perspectives of marginalized groups — Black and Indigenous people, Asians and Latinos — are key to bridging misunderstanding among students, reducing racial and ethnic conflict, and motivating teenagers to pursue social justice causes.

But not everyone sees ethnic studies the same way. Some religious and political conservatives view the state’s guidelines for ethnic studies as the kind of “woke” ideologies in education that President Trump has vowed to eliminate as he seeks to do away with diversity, equity and inclusion programming in schools.

California’s ethnic studies curriculum guide embraces pro-LGBTQ+ content and speaks of connecting students to “contemporary social movements that struggle for social justice and an equitable and democratic society, and conceptualize, imagine, and build new possibilities for a post-racist, post-systemic-racism society.”

With tensions high over how race, religion and ethnicity are taught in schools, state lawmakers recently explored legislation that would have put strict standards on how ethnic studies could be taught. That bill was supported by 31 legislators and its sponsors expressed particular concern about how ethnic studies teachers are presenting Jews and the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — re-igniting long-simmering concerns about the field of study.

Amid weekend discussions, however, the group shelved the bill — which dealt only with ethnic studies. Instead, lawmakers unveiled a broader piece of school legislation aimed at ending campus antisemitism while providing greater “anti-discrimination protections related to nationality and religion.”

A hearing on the new bill is set for Wednesday.

Teacher Amber Palma talks with student Angel Alvarez during an ethnic studies class at Firebaugh High School in Lynwood.

(Hon Wing Chiu / For The Times)

Although the bill’s provisions are still being crafted, it would apply to any course or schooling activity — and include a mechanism for stronger oversight of K-12 ethnic studies, which remains central to the concerns of the bill’s primary sponsors, including Assemblymember Dawn Addis (D-Morro Bay).

“Jewish families and children have been made, in many instances, to feel unwelcome or made the targets of hate and discrimination in school — where they’re supposed to feel safe and supported,” Addis said. “We want to get all the things in place to get back to what schools are supposed to be doing.”

Troy Flint, chief communications officer for the California School Boards Assn. said the ethnic studies requirement “has been fraught since its inception, and there have been starts, stumbles and restarts to try and develop a piece of legislation that’s amenable to all the different interest groups. … And I don’t know that we’ve reached that point yet.”

“School districts are in a bind,” both in terms of their costs and their academic program, he added, “because there’s a possibility a mandate could be implemented, but it’s uncertain.”

(Hon Wing Chiu / For The Times)

What’s happened since the law was approved?

Newsom signed the ethnic studies graduation requirement into law in 2021, giving districts four years to develop one or more ethnic studies classes, using a menu of materials and topics from the nearly 700-page state model curriculum guide, approved by the State Board of Education.

That curriculum guide had been a source of controversy — leading Newsom to veto an earlier bill for an ethnic studies requirement. After substantial revisions, the final version eliminated course materials that likened the Palestinian cause, in its conflict with Israel, to the struggles of marginalized groups in America — because critics said it lacked balance or nuance.

The revision also toned down what critics characterized as obscure academic jargon and bias against capitalism. More groups were added as potential study topics, including Jewish Americans, Sikhs and Armenians.

Under current law, the state’s model curriculum serves as a guide — not a required set of lessons. School districts are responsible for developing their courses and are free to teach units that reflect their enrollment. Students in Glendale, with its large Armenian American population, for example, could study the Armenian immigrant experience.

(Hon Wing Chiu / For The Times)

This flexibility has allowed academic experts in the field to prepare prepackaged courses and lessons that vary widely to help schools prepare. Some are free to download. Independent Institute, for example, has posted one free curriculum that consciously aims to be less controversial in terms of current political disputes.

The group with perhaps the most long-standing ties to the field of ethnic studies in California has created a curriculum called Liberated Ethnic Studies. This curriculum also is free to download, although some of its creators and supporters have worked as school district consultants.

A portion of the Liberated content guide has worried a coalition of Jewish groups who contend portions of the curriculum veer toward antisemitism. Their concerns have fueled ongoing debate in Sacramento about the need for stricter course standards.

(Hon Wing Chiu / For The Times)

Creators of the Liberated materials had been involved in writing the first version of the state’s model curriculum — which also was criticized by Jewish groups and legislators. State officials ultimately removed the Liberated academics from involvement in the state’s curriculum guide. And the academics, in turn, disowned the state curriculum guide and created their own materials.

A leader of the Liberated curriculum effort, Cal State Northridge professor of Chicano and Chicana studies Theresa Montaño, said she does not know how may school districts are using their lessons because they can be downloaded for free. She estimated that 70% of the Liberated content is virtually identical to the state’s revised model curriculum.

She said concerns about politicized content are overwrought.

“Ethnic studies was born out of a movement to begin to make certain that communities of color have the rightful location in the curriculum,” Montaño said.

She added that the scholars who put together the Liberated contents are recognized leading experts in an academically rigorous field that has developed over the last 60 years.

Students take part in an activity during an ethnic studies class at Firebaugh High School in Lynwood.

(Hon Wing Chiu / For The Times)

What’s happening in the classroom?

Ethnic studies teacher Amber Palma teaches at Firebaugh High School in Lynwood and virtually all of her students are Latino with immigrant backgrounds — and some degree of current political context is unavoidable.

“If the class is about your identity and your place in this American society — and that is a real social political issue that you are facing in context as we speak — you can’t say we’re going to not talk about what’s happening,” Palma said. “You have to address concerns, as you would with any class, with any kids.”

“Given our climate and the challenges that our students and their families and their communities are facing, I think we really do need to push the sense of empowerment, a sense of agency,” said Palma, whose district developed its own curriculum.

Students listen as teacher Amber Palma leads a discussion during an ethnic studies class at Firebaugh High School in Lynwood.

(Hon Wing Chiu / For The Times)

“If done right, ethnic studies is a good thing for all students,” said David Bocarsly, executive director of Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California, a lobbying group whose positions include supporting Israel’s right to exist. “Unfortunately … we have seen far too many instances of factually inaccurate and antisemitic content entering classrooms,” he said.

Bocarsly said members of his coalition of Jewish groups estimate there are real or potential problems in several dozen school districts among the 1,000 in California, based on issues that have emerged. The extent to which the Liberated curriculum is used in these districts has not been determined.

Assemblymember Addis is concerned that there could be inappropriate elements of Liberated’s alleged bias affecting “hundreds and hundreds” of school districts up and down the state.

In April, the California Department of Education concluded that two Bay Area ethnic studies teachers in the Campbell Union High School District violated California law when they included content related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that was allegedly biased and discriminated against Jewish students.

How are school districts responding?

A winter clash in the Palo Alto, Calif., school district underscores the kinds of debates that have unfolded about the course.

In a district with 40% Asian enrollment, some complained the course defined power and privilege in a way that discounted the hard work that resulted in prosperity for many immigrants. Critics also accused district officials of a lack of transparency and of not allowing for meaningful input into course content. Some were concerned that topics would be divisive.

“As feared, rancor has ensued,” said Lauren Janov, a critic of the Liberated curriculum and co-founder of Palo Alto Parent Alliance. “From the start, the state lost control of ethnic studies.”

In January, the Palo Alto board approved its own ethnic studies requirement by a 3-2 vote.

In February, Santa Ana Unified shelved three ethnic studies classes as part of a legal settlement reached with a coalition of Jewish groups. The groups had filed a lawsuit alleging that secrecy and antisemitism defined the district’s ethnic studies rollout.

The district still offers various other ethnic studies courses and has no plans to reverse policy, regardless of state funding, a district spokesperson said.

Student Arianne Moreno distributes an assignment during an ethnic studies class at Firebaugh High School in Lynwood.

(Hon Wing Chiu / For The Times)

In San Bernardino County, the Chino Valley Unified school board president also raises cost as an issue but sees the mandate pause as an opportunity to step back from ethnic studies.

“We made it clear that the course will not be implemented unless the state mandate goes into effect,” said Sonja Shaw, a pro-Trump Republican who is running for state superintendent of public instruction.

“Much of the ethnic studies already being pushed reflects divisive, politically driven ideology that doesn’t unite students; it separates them. …While kids are falling behind in reading, writing and math, the state continues to push its political agendas onto children,” Shaw said.

In Los Angeles Unified, the state’s largest school system, 11 courses can satisfy the district’s requirement, including a broad survey course and more specialized classes, such as African American Literature, American Indian Studies and Exploring Visual Arts through Ethnic Studies.

The resentencing hearing for brothers Erik and Lyle Menendez kicked off Tuesday morning with emotional testimony from family members, one of whom testified in court that they should be freed from prison for the shotgun killing of their parents more than 30 years ago.

Annmaria Baralt, often wiping away her tears, testified that the relatives of victims Jose and Kitty Menendez want a judge to give the brothers a lesser sentence than life without parole for the 1989 murders inside their Beverly Hills mansion.

“Yes, we all on both sides of the family say 35 years is enough,” she told Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic in a Van Nuys courtroom. “They are universally forgiven by both sides of their families.”

Baralt, whose mother was Jose Menendez’s older sister, said the family had endured decades of pain from the scrutiny of the murders.

“From the day it happened… it has been a relentless examination of our family in the public eye,” she said, beginning to cry. “It has been torture for decades.” She said the family was the butt of repeated jokes on “Saturday Night Live” and lived like outcasts who wore a “scarlet M.”

The Menendez brothers have been in prison for more than 35 years after being sentenced to life without the possibility of parole in the gruesome 1989 murders. The brothers bought shotguns with cash and opened fire as their mother and father watched a movie. Jose Menendez was shot five times, including in the kneecaps and the back of the head. Kitty Menendez crawled on the floor, wounded, before one of the brothers reloaded and fired a fatal blast, jurors heard at their two trials.

On the stand Tuesday, Baralt echoed the brothers’ justification for killing their parents — saying it was out of fear their father was going to kill them to cover up his past sexual abuse of the boys.

She told the judge that she believes they have changed and are “very aware of the consequences of their actions.”

“I don’t think they are the same people they were 30 years ago,” she said.

If Jesic agrees to resentence them, the brothers would become eligible for parole under California’s youthful offender law, since the murders happened when they were under 26. If the judge sides with Los Angeles Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman, they would still have a path to freedom through Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is weighing a clemency petition. Regardless, Erik and Lyle would still have to appear before the state parole board before they could walk free. Jesic on Tuesday emphasized that the bar to keep them from being resentenced is high, and that they would have to still pose a serious danger to the public.

Prosecutor Habib Balian spent the morning trying to punch holes in the brothers’ relatively clean reputations they’ve gotten behind bars.

Under cross-examination, Baralt admitted that she never thought her cousins were capable of killing their parents until they’d done it, and that prior to their criminal trial decades ago, Lyle Menendez had asked a witness to lie for him on the stand.

Nearly two dozen of the brothers’ relatives, including several who testified Tuesday, formed the Justice for Erik and Lyle Coalition to advocate for their release as interest in the case reignited in recent years. The release of a popular Netflix documentary on the murder, which included the unearthing of additional documentation of Jose Menendez’s alleged sexual abuse, helped fuel a motion for a new trial.

The family has become increasingly public in its fight for Erik and Lyle’s release after Hochman opposed his predecessor’s recommendation to re-sentence them. They have repeatedly accused Hochman of bias against the brothers, called for him to be disqualified from the case and alleged he intimidated and bullied them during a private meeting. Hochman has denied all accusations of bias and wrongdoing, and says he simply disagrees with their position.

Kitty Menendez’s brother, Milton, was the only member of the family opposed to Erik and Lyle’s release, but he died earlier this year. Kathy Cady, who served as his victims’ rights attorney, is now the head of Hochman’s Bureau of Victims’ Services, another point of aggravation for the relatives fighting for the brothers release.

WASHINGTON — The California attorney general’s office said Tuesday it will seek a preliminary injunction in its case challenging President Trump’s tariff policy, a move that could result in a court order freezing sweeping import duties on worldwide products that have rocked the global economy and U.S. markets since last month.

The case, filed last month in the Northern District of California, argues that Trump lacks authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs he announced April 2 on nearly all U.S. trading partners, as well as those levied against China, Mexico and Canada due to the fentanyl trade, a set of tariffs that used the same national security rationale.

A hearing in the case is scheduled for next week, and a decision on the preliminary injunction could come from the San Francisco federal court as soon as mid-June, an official with the attorney general’s office told The Times.

Trump announced a new baseline for global tariffs on April 2 and a series of country-specific tariff rates that sent banks and financial institutions into a panic. The White House has retreated on several of the harshest elements of the policy, but tariffs remain far higher on most trading partners, inflicting continuing harm on California, the state’s lawyers argue.

“Uncertainty and unpredictability are bad for business, bad for the economy, and bad for California,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “California is set to experience an outsized share of losses due to our larger economy, workforce, and exposure to trade. We are pulling out all the stops and will today ask the court to immediately halt these illegal tariffs while California argues its case.”

In a filing in another case, the attorney general’s office submitted an amicus brief supporting an effort by other states to halt the tariffs in the Court of International Trade, which could issue a ruling on the matter even earlier.

“President Trump has overstepped his authority, and now families, businesses, and our ports are literally paying the price,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom. “As the largest economy in the nation, California has the most to lose from President Trump’s weak and reckless policies.”

WASHINGTON — House Republicans proposed sweeping tax breaks Monday in President Trump’s big priority bill, tallying at least $4.9 trillion in costs so far, partly paid for with cuts to Medicaid, food stamps and green energy programs used by millions of Americans.

The House Ways and Means Committee named its package “THE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL” in all capital letters, a nod to Trump himself. It seeks to extend the tax breaks approved during Trump’s first term — and boost the standard deduction, child tax credit and estate tax exemption — while adding new tax breaks on tipped wages, overtime pay, Social Security benefits and auto loans that Trump promised during his campaign for the White House.

There’s also a tripling of the state and local tax deduction, called SALT, from $10,000 up to $30,000 for couples, which certain high-tax state GOP lawmakers from New York and California already rejected as too meager. Private universities would be hit with a hefty new tax on their endowments, as much as 21%, as the Trump administration goes after the Ivy League and other campuses. And one unusual provision would terminate the tax-exempt status of groups the State Department says support “terrorists,” which civil society advocates warn is a way to potentially punish those at odds with the Trump administration.

Overall, the package is touching off the biggest political debate over taxes, spending and the nation’s priorities in nearly a decade. Not since 2017 has Congress wrestled with legislation as this, when Republicans approved the Trump tax cuts but also failed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. The cost assessments are only preliminary, and expected to soar.

“Republicans need to UNIFY,” Trump posted on social media before departing for a trip to the Middle East.

Trump said when he returns to Washington, “we will work together on any and all outstanding issues, but there shouldn’t be many — The Bill is GREAT. We have no alternative, WE MUST WIN!”

But one key Republican, Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, implored his party not to impair Medicaid, arguing that cutting healthcare to pay for tax breaks is both “morally wrong and politically suicidal.”

“If Republicans want to be a working-class party — if we want to be a majority party — we must ignore calls to cut Medicaid and start delivering on America’s promise for America’s working people,” Hawley wrote in the New York Times.

Late Monday, the House Agriculture Committee released its proposals — cutting $290 billion from federal nutrition programs, in part by shifting costs to the states and requiring able-bodied adults without dependents to fulfill work requirements until they are 64 years old, rather than 54, to qualify for food aid.

Round-the-clock work ahead

As Republicans race toward House Speaker Mike Johnson’s Memorial Day deadline to pass Trump’s big bill, they are preparing to flood the zone with round-the-clock public hearings starting Tuesday and stitch the various sections together in what will become a massive package.

The politics ahead are uncertain. The bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation said Monday that tax breaks would reduce revenue by $4.9 trillion over the decade — and that was before Trump’s new tax breaks were included.

Texas Rep. Chip Roy, a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, warned the price tag could climb to $20 trillion, piling onto the deficits and debt.

“I sure hope House & Senate leadership are coming up with a backup plan,” Roy posted on social media, “…. because I’m not here to rack up an additional $20 trillion in debt over 10 years.”

House Republicans have been huddling behind closed doors, working out final provisions in the 389-page tax portion of the package.

The legislation proposes to boost the standard deduction many Americans use by $2,000, to $32,000 per household, and increase the child tax credit from $2,000 to $2,500 for four years. It adds a new requirement focused on preventing undocumented immigrants from benefiting from the credit even if the children are U.S. citizens, which the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank, estimates would affect 4.5 million children who are U.S. citizens or lawful residents.

It would also increase the estate tax exemption, which is now $14 million, to $15 million and index future increases to inflation.

As for the president’s promises, the legislation includes Trump’s “no taxes on tips” pledge, providing a deduction for those workers in service industry and other jobs that have traditionally relied on tips. It directs the Treasury secretary to issue guidance to avoid businesses gaming the system.

The package also provides tax relief for automobile shoppers with a temporary deduction of up to $10,000 on car loan interest, applying the benefit only for those vehicles where the final assembly occurred in the United States. The tax break would expire at the end of Trump’s term.

For seniors, there would be a bolstered $4,000 deduction on Social Security wages for those with adjusted incomes no higher than $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for couples.

But one hard-fought provision, the deduction for state and local taxes known as SALT, appears to be a work in progress. The legislation proposes lifting the cap to $15,000 for single filers and $30,000 for couples, but with a reduction at higher incomes — about $200,000 for singles and $400,000 for couples.

“Still a hell no,” wrote Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) on social media.

Battle over Medicaid, food aid

Meanwhile, dozens of House Republicans have told Johnson and GOP leaders they will not support cuts to Medicaid, which provides some 70 million Americans with healthcare, nor to green energy tax breaks that businesses back home have been relying on to invest in new wind, solar and renewable projects.

All told, 11 committees in the House have been compiling their sections of the package as Republicans seek at least $1.5 trillion in savings to help cover the cost of preserving the 2017 tax breaks, which are expiring at the end of the year.

The final section from the Agriculture Committee proposed cutting the Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program, known as SNAP, by expanding work requirements, limiting future expansions of the program and forcing states to shoulder more of the cost.

Along with new work requirements for older Americans, it would also require some parents of children older than 7 to work to qualify, down from 18 years old. Only areas with unemployment rates over 10% would be eligible for waivers.

Some Republicans have already balked at the increased costs to the states, which would be required to contribute at least 5% of the cost of SNAP allotments beginning in 2028.

At the same time, the legislation would invest $60 billion in new money for agriculture programs, sending aid to farmers.

On Sunday, House Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee unveiled the cost-saving centerpiece of the package, with at least $880 billion in cuts largely to Medicaid to help cover the cost of the tax breaks.

While Republicans insist they are simply rooting out “waste, fraud and abuse” to generate savings with new work and eligibility requirements, Democrats warn that millions of Americans will lose coverage. In the 15 years since Obamacare became law, Medicaid has only expanded as most states have tapped into federal funds.

A preliminary estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the proposals would reduce the number of people with healthcare by 8.6 million.

To be eligible for Medicaid, there would be new “community engagement requirements” of at least 80 hours per month of work, education or service for able-bodied adults without dependents. People would also have to verify their eligibility to be in the program twice a year, rather than just once.

There are substantial cuts proposed for green energy programs and tax breaks, rolling back climate-change strategies from the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act.

Mascaro and Freking write for the Associated Press. AP writers Amanda Seitz, Leah Askarinam and Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta filed two lawsuits on Tuesday challenging a Trump administration policy that would deny the state billions of dollars in transportation grants unless it follows the administration’s lead on immigration enforcement.

“Let’s be clear about what’s happening here,” Bonta said in a statement. “The President is threatening to yank funds to improve our roads, keep our planes in the air, prepare for emergencies, and protect against terrorist attacks if states do not fall in line with his demands.”

“He’s treating these funds, which have nothing to do with immigration enforcement and everything to do with the safety of our communities, as a bargaining chip,” Bonta added.

The lawsuits, filed with a coalition of states against the Departments of Transportation and Homeland Security, argue that imposing the new set of conditions across a broad range of grant programs exceeds the administration’s legal authority.

Last month, Trump signed an executive order aiming to identify and possibly cut off federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities and states, which limit collaboration between local law enforcement and immigration authorities.

“It’s quite simple,” said White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt in a briefing announcing the executive order. “Obey the law, respect the law, and don’t obstruct federal immigration officials and law enforcement officials when they are simply trying to remove public safety threats from our nation’s communities.”

Cities and states that find themselves on the Trump administration’s list could also face criminal and civil rights lawsuits, as well as charges for violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

During Trump’s first term in 2018, California legislators passed a pioneering sanctuary law, the California Values Act.

California receives more than $15.7 billion in transportation grants annually to maintain roads, highways, railways, airways and bridges, Bonta’s office said. That includes $2 billion for transit systems, including buses, commuter rail, trolleys and ferries.

The state also receives $20.6 billion in yearly homeland security grants to prepare for and respond to terrorist attacks and other catastrophes. Those funds include emergency preparedness and cybersecurity grants.

But the coalition of states — California, Illinois, New Jersey and Rhode Island — argued that because such grant funding has no connection to immigration enforcement, the Trump administration cannot impose criteria that forces states to comply with its vision of enforcement.

“President Trump doesn’t have the authority to unlawfully coerce state and local governments into using their resources for federal immigration enforcement — and his latest attempt to bully them into doing so is blatantly illegal,” Bonta said.

This story will be updated.

WASHINGTON — A small nodule was found in the prostate of former President Biden during a routine physical exam, a spokesperson said Tuesday.

A short statement said the finding “necessitated further evaluation,” but it was not clear whether that had already taken place or the outcome of the examination.

The detection of nodules in the prostate generally requires a further exam by a urologist to rule out prostate cancer. These kinds of abnormal growths can be caused by cancer or by less serious conditions, including inflammation or an enlarged prostate.

Biden is 82. His age and concerns about his health were cited by Democratic leaders who pressed him to abandon his reelection bid in 2024 following a disastrous debate performance last June.

But as recently as last week, Biden rejected concerns about his age, saying the broader party didn’t buy into that, and instead blaming the Democratic leadership and “significant contributors.”

President Trump repeatedly raised questions about Biden’s physical and mental capacity during the campaign.

In February 2023, Biden had a skin lesion removed from his chest that was a basal cell carcinoma, a common form of skin cancer. And in November 2021, he had a polyp removed from his colon that was a benign, but potentially pre-cancerous lesion.

Bob Worsley has solid conservative credentials. He’s anti abortion. A fiscal hawk and lifelong member of the Mormon Church. As an Arizona state senator, he won high marks from the National Rifle Assn.

These days, however, Worsley is an oddity, an exception, a Republican pushing back against the animating impulses of today’s MAGA-fied Republican Party.

Here’s how he speaks of immigrants — some of whom entered the United States illegally — and those who seek to demonize them.

“We have people that are aristocratically living in another world,” Worsley said. “Maybe they work for you, but you haven’t really lived with them and understand they’re not criminals. They are good people. They’re family people. They’re religious people. They are great Americans…. So I think that’s a problem if you don’t live with them and you’re making policy.”

If that line of reasoning is too mawkish and bleeding-heart for your taste, Worsley makes a more pragmatic argument for a generous, welcoming immigration policy, one unsentimentally rooted in cold dollars and cents.

“The Trump Organization needs workers, hospitality workers, construction workers,” Worsley said. “The horse-breeding industry, the horse-racing industry, they need these people. The pig farmers, the chicken farmers.”

Worsley owns a Phoenix-based modular housing firm and is chairman of the American Business Immigration Coalition, an organization representing more than 1,700 chief executives and business owners nationwide. Their exceedingly ambitious goal: to find compromise and a middle ground on one of the most contentious and insoluble issues of recent decades — and to bring some balance to a Trump policy that is almost wholly punitive in its nature and intent.

“We are employers … and we don’t have a workforce. We need this workforce,” Worsley said. “And building a wall and stopping all immigration is not going to work, because the water will rise until it comes over.”

A serial entrepreneur before he entered politics, Worsley doesn’t favor throwing the U.S.-Mexico border open to all comers. The “lines between countries” should mean something, he said. But now that America’s borders have been practically sealed shut, fulfilling one of President Trump’s major campaign promises, Worsley suggests it’s past time to address another part of the immigration equation.

“What we need is bigger portals, bigger legal openings to come through the border,” Worsley said, likening it to the way a spillway releases pressure behind a dam. “We need a secure workforce as much as we need a secure border.”

The immigration issue was Worsley’s impetus to enter politics. Or, more specifically, the scapegoating and vilification of immigrants that prefigured Trump and his “poisoning the blood of our country” Sturm und Drang.

Worsley, speaking at a 2017 legislative meeting in Phoenix, entered electoral politics to fight anti-immigrant policies

(Bob Christie / Associated Press)

Worsley, whose ventures included founding the SkyMall catalog — a pre-Amazon everything store — was coaxed into running to thwart the return of former Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce, who was recalled by voters in part for his fiercely anti-immigrant lawmaking. (Worsley beat him in the 2012 GOP primary, then won the general election.)

As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Worsley did his youth missionary work in Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil. “I developed a certain level of comfort and love for the people down there,” Worsley said.

Moreover, the experience colored his perspective on those impoverished souls who traverse borders in search of a better life. A person can’t empathize “unless you’ve actually walked in their shoes, lived in their homes, eaten their food and socialized with them,” Worsley said via Zoom from his home office in Salt Lake City. “And I think that’s a problem.”

He left the Arizona Senate — and electoral politics — in 2019, vexed and frustrated by the rise of Trump and the anti-immigrant wave he rode to his first, improbable election to the White House.

“It was really irritating because I had fought this in Arizona a decade before,” Worsley said. “And so to have this kind of comeback on a national stage was incredibly frustrating.”

He moved part time to Utah, to be closer to his extended family. He wrote a book, “The Horseshoe Virus,” about the immigration issue; the title suggested the convergence of the far left and far right in the country’s long history of anti-immigrant movements.

He became involved with the American Business Immigration Coalition, recruited by Mitt Romney, the GOP’s 2012 presidential nominee, whom Worsley knew through politics and a mutual friendship with Arizona’s late senator, John McCain. Worsley became the board’s chairman in January.

He’s still no fan of Trump, though Worsley emphasized, “I am still a Republican and would vote for a Mitt Romney or John McCain kind of Republican.”

That said, now that the border is under much tighter control, Worsley hopes Trump will not just seek to round up and punish those in the country illegally but also focus on a larger fix to the nation’s dysfunctional immigration system — something no president, Democrat or Republican, has accomplished in nearly 40 years.

It was 1986 when Ronald Reagan signed sweeping legislation that offered amnesty to millions of long-term residents, expanded certain visa programs, cracked down on employers who hired illegal workers and promised to harden the border once and for all through stiffer enforcement — a pledge that, obviously, came to naught.

“Once you’ve secured the border and you don’t have caravans of people coming toward us, then you can address [the question of] what’s the pragmatic solution so that this doesn’t happen again?” Worsley asked. “We’re hopeful that’s where we’re going next.”

It’s long overdue.

Good morning. I’m Gustavo Arellano, columnista, writing from Orange County and watching my tomato seedlings grow. Here’s what you need to know to start your day.

Montebello’s ex-mayor turns to Orange County

Frank Gomez was born to be an L.A. County politician.

His grandfather attended Roosevelt High with pioneering Eastside congressmember Ed Roybal and helped to fight off a proposed veteran’s hospital in Hazard Park. His mother went to Belvedere Middle School with longtime L.A. councilmember Richard Alatorre. His father taught Chicano political titans Gil Cedillo and Vickie Castro in high school. When Gomez won a seat on the Montebello Unified School District board of trustees in 1997, Richard Polanco — the Johnny Appleseed-meets-Scrooge McDuck of Latino politics in California — helped out his campaign.

That’s why people were surprised in 2013 when Gomez — by then a Montebello council member who had served a year as mayor — announced he was leaving L.A. County altogether to marry his current wife.

“I had the choice between politics and love,” said the 61-year-old during a recent breakfast in Santa Ana. “It was an easy choice.”

Gomez couldn’t stay away from politics for long

Today, Gomez leads STEM initiatives for the Cal State system and is also the chair of the Central Orange County Democratic Club, which covers Orange, Tustin, parts of unincorporated Orange County “and a few voters in Villa Park,” Gomez told me with a chuckle.

He’s headed the Central O.C. Dems since last year, and has grown them from about 60 members to over 300. Soft-spoken but forceful, Gomez likes to apply his background as a chemistry professor — “We need to be strategic and analytical” — in helping to build a Democratic bench of elected officials in a region that was a long a GOP stronghold before becoming as purple as Barney the Dinosaur.

I knew Gomez’s name but didn’t realize his L.A. political background until we met last month. That makes him a rare one: someone who has dabbled in both L.A. and Orange county politics, two worlds that rarely collide because each considers the other a wasteland.

As someone who has covered O.C. politics for a quarter century but has only paid attention to L.A. politics in earnest since I started with The Times in 2019, I have my thoughts about each scene’s differences and similarities. But what about Gomez?

From one cutthroat political scene to another

“In L.A., it’s Democrats against Democrats,” he replied. “It’s not like I didn’t know” what to expect when moving to O.C., he said. “But it’s the difference between Fashion Island and the Citadel.”

He thought his days in politics were over until 2022, when his stepson — who had interned with longtime Irvine politico Larry Agran — urged him to run for a seat on the Tustin City Council.

Commence Gomez’s true “Welcome to the O.C., bitch” moment.

Opponents sent out mailers with photos of garbage cans and graffiti and the message, “Do not bring L.A. to Tustin,” a political insult introduced to Orange County politics that year by Dist. Atty. Todd Spitzer.

“Those gated communities still try to keep their unsaid redlining,” Gomez said. “It wasn’t like that in L.A. politics because there was no place for it.”

Racist L.A. City Hall audio leak notwithstanding, of course.

Trying to topple O.C.’s last remaining GOP congressmember

Gomez unsuccessfully ran last year for a seat on the Municipal Water District of Orange County. He now plans to focus his political energies on growing the Central O.C. Dems and figuring out how to topple Rep. Young Kim, O.C.’s last remaining GOP congressmember. In the meanwhile, he will continue his political salons at the Central O.C. Dems’ monthly meetings at St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Tustin — I was on the hot seat in April, and upcoming guests include coastal O.C. Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris, O.C. supervisorial candidate Connor Traut and former congressmember and current California gubernatorial candidate Katie Porter.

“It’s like being in the classroom,” Gomez said as he packed up his leftovers. “All I do is ask the questions and keep it flowing.”

He smiled. “Johnny Carson on intellectual steroids.”

Today’s top stories

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem arrives for a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security oversight hearing on Thursday on Capitol Hill in Washington.

(Julia Demaree Nikhinson / Associated Press)

The Trump administration will investigate L.A. County

• The administration announced Monday that it has launched an investigation into California’s Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants.
• The state program provides monthly cash benefits to elderly, blind and disabled noncitizens who are ineligible for Social Security benefits because of their immigration status.

Newsom urges cities to ban homeless camps

• The governor’s plan asks localities to prohibit persistent camping and encampments that block sidewalks.
• This is an escalation from last year, when Newsom ordered California agencies to clear homeless camps from state lands.

How to understand the recent trade deals

Inside the investigation into faulty evacuation alerts during the wildfires in January

• Software glitches, cellphone provider mixups and poor wording on the alert itself compounded to stoke confusion.
• On Jan. 9, residents across the region received a wireless emergency alert urging them to prepare to evacuate.
• Meanwhile, western Altadena, where 17 people died, got its evacuation order many hours after the Eaton fire exploded.

What else is going on

Get unlimited access to the Los Angeles Times. Subscribe here.

This morning’s must reads

Black nationalist leader Malcolm X, left, and Louis Farrakhan, chief minister of the Nation of Islam’s Boston mosque, right, attend a rally at Lennox Avenue and 115th Street in the Harlem section of New York in 1963.

(Robert Haggins / Associated Press)

Ibram X. Kendi is ready to introduce kids to Malcolm X: ‘Racism is worse in times of tragedy’ Ibram X. Kendi discusses introducing Malcolm X to today’s young readers and the timing of his new book in light of President Trump’s anti-DEI actions.

How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to [email protected].

For your downtime

The Pasadena Playhouse

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Going out

Staying in

A question for you: What’s your favorite karaoke song?

Peg says: “David Bowie’s Life on Mars!”
Paul says “My Way.” (We’re assuming he means by Frank Sinatra)

Keep the suggestions coming. Email us at [email protected], and your response might appear in the newsletter this week.

And finally … your photo of the day

Wet Magazine Issue 3 from October/November 1976

(Photography and design by Leonard Koren)

Today’s great photo is from the archives: Leonard Koren began documenting L.A. bathing culture back in 1976 with Wet magazine, which featured contributions from David Lynch, Debbie Harry and Ed Ruscha.

Have a great day, from the Essential California team

Gustavo Arellano, California columnist
Karim Doumar, head of newsletters

Check our top stories, topics and the latest articles on latimes.com.

Perched high above the Cahuenga Pass, the 24-story Hilton Los Angeles Universal City Hotel is positioned to be a prime gathering spot for visitors arriving for the 2028 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Sun Hill Properties Inc., which manages the 495-room hotel, has already signed a “room block” agreement with the LA28 organizing committee, reserving hundreds of rooms for Olympics fans. The City Council recently approved a plan to let the Hilton add a second, 18-story tower, which would open just in time for the Olympics.

Now, the future of the $250-million expansion is in doubt. On Wednesday, the Los Angeles City Council is set to vote on a requirement that hotels with 60 or more rooms pay their workers at least $30 per hour by 2028, along with a new $8.35 per hour healthcare payment.

If the council approves the proposal without significant changes, Sun Hill “absolutely will be pulling out of the room block for the Olympics,” said Mark Davis, the company’s president and chief executive. The hotel’s investors will also kill the 395-room expansion, he said.

“Our board was very adamant that if [council members] go forward with this nonsense, that it’s dead,” Davis said. “They’re going to move the project somewhere else.”

The council voted 12-3 last year to instruct City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto to draft the package of minimum wage hikes, which would apply not just to hotels but also private companies at Los Angeles International Airport, such as airlines and concessions. The minimum wage would be the highest in the country, according to Unite Here Local 11, the hotel and restaurant workers union, which has championed the proposal.

Mark Davis, president and CEO of Sun Hill Properties, said a proposal to hike L.A.’s minimum wage for hotel workers would kill a plan for a new 18-story hotel tower unless it is reworked.

(Marcus Ubungen / Los Angeles Times)

Backers of the higher wage say L.A.’s tourism workers are struggling to pay for food and rent, and deserve to benefit financially from the Olympics just as much as private corporations. They dismiss the hospitality industry’s dire warnings, including the notion that increased wages will scuttle the development of new hotels.

City Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez said the Sheraton Universal Hotel, a nearby competitor of the Hilton, has already been paying a higher wage to its unionized workforce. The real threat to the development of new hotels, he said, is higher interest rates and the economic uncertainty surrounding President Trump’s trade policies.

“So, I just don’t buy it,” said Soto-Martínez, a former hotel union organizer, as he referred to Davis’ warning.

Under the city’s proposal, the hotel and airport minimum wage would reach $22.50 on July 1. It would jump to $25 in July 2026, $27.50 in July 2027 and $30 in July 2028. On top of those increases, the $8.35 per hour healthcare payment would go into effect on Jan. 1.

Business groups point out that two hotels have closed in the past year — Four Points by Sheraton next to LAX and Mama Shelter in Hollywood, for a loss of 270 jobs. They say Trump’s trade wars are driving down tourist activity from other nations, with visitors from Canada especially lagging.

Once the increases are in effect, business leaders say, hotels with on-site dining won’t be able to compete with non-hotel restaurants, which will have a much lower minimum wage.

Jon Bortz, chairman and chief executive of the Pebblebrook Hotel Trust, said his company is already looking at scaling back restaurant operations at two of its Southern California properties — the Kimpton Hotel Palomar and the W Los Angeles West Beverly Hills, both in Westwood near UCLA.

The Palomar will likely offset the cost of the higher minimum wage by converting its restaurant into a self-service breakfast operation, while the W will probably close at least one of its two restaurants, Bortz said. “We have to change the business model of these properties to have any hope of surviving,” he added.

Bortz said the proposed wage hikes, along with other hotel regulations approved by the City Council in recent years, have spurred Pebblebrook to look to other markets for new hotel projects.

“Frankly, the [L.A.] market, from a broad-based buyer perspective, has been crossed off the map by investors,” he said.

Hotels in other parts of L.A. are considering similar reductions. An executive with Lightstone Group, which owns the 727-room Moxy + AC Hotels near the Convention Center, told City Council members last year that the minimum wage proposal would likely result in the closure of Level 8, a collection of restaurants on the hotel’s eighth floor.

Mark Beccaria, a partner with the Hotel Angeleno near the 405 Freeway, said in a separate letter to city leaders that he would have to shutter not just the hotel’s restaurant but also its valet parking, eliminating 39 jobs.

“Common sense says you cannot raise wages over 50% in a year when revenues are down,” he said.

Kurt Petersen, co-president of Unite Here Local 11, accused the hotels of fear-mongering, saying they are misrepresenting the potential impact of the planned wage hikes. Hotel owners, he said, “act like the sky is falling every time they have to share profits with their workers.”

“This ‘Chicken Little’ stuff has got to end. Every single time, hotels cry poverty, and then a day later, they’re doing fine. It’s always the same routine,” Petersen said. “What’s not falling is rent and healthcare. What’s not sustainable is workers not earning enough to live in Los Angeles.”

The hospitality industry issued similar warnings a decade ago — when the council approved the current hotel minimum wage — only to see tourism flourish in the years that immediately followed, said Víctor Sánchez, executive director of the L.A. Alliance for a New Economy, a pro-labor advocacy group that produced a report on that phenomenon.

In Long Beach, where residents voted to raise the hotel minimum wage last year, revenue per available room was up 15.7% in March compared with the same month the prior year, said Sánchez, citing data from the real estate group CoStar.

L.A.’s political leaders have enacted a number of wage laws over the last few decades. The hotel minimum wage, approved by the council in 2014, is currently $20.32 per hour. The minimum wage for private-sector employees at LAX is $25.23 per hour, once the required $5.95 hourly healthcare payment is included. Then there’s the minimum wage for nearly everyone else in L.A., which is $17.28 per hour — 78 cents higher than the state’s.

The hourly minimum wage for hotel and airport workers was already slated to go up this year, as part of regularly scheduled increases in the city’s wage laws. Once the council showed interest in the much larger increases, business leaders began warning that hotel developers would take their business elsewhere.

Few were as dramatic as Davis, who told council members that their proposal, as drafted, would “likely kill” the Universal City Hilton’s 395-room expansion.

Davis, whose company has hotels in Simi Valley, Colorado Springs, Colo., and the greater Denver area, said his board instructed him last year to look at acquiring property outside of California, in markets that “make more sense financially for an investment of $250 million.”

“The owners investing this money, they have to look at the numbers,” he said in an interview. “Any project survives only by its numbers.”

The Universal City Hilton already pays most of its workers more than $25 per hour, while also offering healthcare coverage, Davis said. If those health plans have a financial value lower than the $8.35 per hour, the company will need to make up the difference, he said.

Davis said he, too, is looking at scaling back restaurant operations, which would likely require layoffs.

At one point, Davis’ project drew support from the city’s political leaders.

The Universal City Hilton reached an agreement early on with construction trade unions, promising to pay a higher prevailing wage to the estimated 1,000 construction workers who would work on the new tower.

In August, the council voted unanimously to seek an economic analysis that would determine whether the city should provide taxpayer assistance to the project. The analysis, requested by Councilmembers Nithya Raman and Soto-Martínez, would have explored whether to allow the hotel to keep a share of the tax revenues generated by the new tower.

Raman, whose district includes a portion of Universal City, did not respond to questions from The Times about the project — or the potential impact of the higher tourism wage.

In recent days, the Hotel Assn. of Los Angeles has been appealing directly to Mayor Karen Bass, purchasing digital ads that ask her to intervene on the minimum wage issue.

Bass, in an interview earlier this year, said she wants hotel workers to “make a decent living” while also ensuring that their employers “are able to survive.”

“We have to make sure that we can address both — that we can address the needs of the workers without crippling the industry,” she said.

Homeless encampments are dirty. And ugly. And seem, to those who venture near them and even to some who live there, unsafe.

They are also — sadly, wrongly — places of last resort for those whose second, third and even fourth chances haven’t panned out, sometimes through their own mistakes, sometimes because they’re so far down just staying alive is a battle. Though we tend to toss homelessness in the soup pot along with mental illness and drug use, the terrifying fact is that nearly half of the folks living on our streets are over the age of 50 and wound up there because a bit of bad luck left them unable to pay the rent.

“At the end of the day, we have a homelessness crisis because we don’t have enough housing,” Margot Kushel said. She’s a professor of medicine at UC San Francisco and director of the UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative. There’s really no one in the state who understands encampments and their residents better.

Which is why I am deeply disheartened by Gov. Gavin Newsom’s push Monday to encourage cities and counties to outlaw encampments — even providing a handy-dandy boilerplate ordinance for local governments to pass. It moves California one step closer to criminalizing homelessness, no matter how softly or deftly he packages that truth.

Or how politically expedient it may be.

“It is time to take back the streets. It’s time to take back the sidewalks. It’s time to take these encampments and provide alternatives,” Newsom said. “It simply cannot continue. It cannot be a way of life living out on the streets, in sidewalks, in what almost become permanent structures, impeding foot traffic, impeding our ability for our kids to walk the streets and strollers, or seniors with disabilities and wheelchairs, even navigating their sidewalks. We cannot allow that to continue.”

From a political perspective, that tirade is spot on. The clock is already ticking on the 2026 midterms, which coincide with the end of his tenure as California’s leader. Not only is Newsom eyeing the horizon for his next move, presidential or not, but Democrats are eyeing the condition of California and whether Trump and his supporters will be able to once again use it as the example of everything that’s wrong with America, as they did in both 2020 and 2024.

Even Kushel, who near daily hears the heartbreaking reasons people are homeless, knows encampments aren’t the answer.

“I do think the encampments are a disaster,” she said. “I want them gone too.”

But, not at the cost of making things worse, which is what breaking them down without a place to put people does. Newsom’s draft ordinance makes nice talk about not criminalizing folks, but also doesn’t require more than “every reasonable effort” to provide shelter to those being displaced — knowing full well that we don’t have enough shelter beds.

It also talks nice about not throwing out people’s belongings, unless maybe they have bugs or feces on them — which, let’s be real, they might — in which case, the dumpster it is, even if that bundle may contain your identification or medications.

That constant loss, constant movement, not only sets people back even more, it also breaks trust and pushes people further out of sight and out of society. So by the time there are shelter beds or treatment centers, you’ve lost cooperation from the people you want to help. Homelessness becomes even more dystopian, if more invisible.

“I actually worry that making people move every day, threatening them with arrest, all of those things make the problem worse and not better,” Kushel said.

Some might recall that this new age of compassionate crackdowns began last year after the Supreme Court ruled in Grants Pass vs. Johnson that it wasn’t cruel or unusual punishment to outlaw camping in public spaces — allowing municipalities to cite or arrest those who did. Newsom’s office took the side of the city of Grants Pass, Ore., filing a brief in support of more enforcement powers. Since then, Newsom — sometimes personally with camera crews in tow — has cleared more than 16,000 encampments on state lands.

Some cities have followed suit with tough laws of their own, including San José. But other cities have resisted, much to Newsom’s dismay.

In Grants Pass, things didn’t go exactly as planned. There’s currently an injunction against its enforcement on camping laws after Disability Rights Oregon sued the city. Tom Stenson, the group’s deputy legal director, told me that the organization has seen how the anti-camping laws have been hard on folks with physical or mental impairments, many of whom are older.

As the housing crunch hit that state, the low-rent places where his plaintiffs lived “disappeared, and then there is just nowhere for them to go, and it just forces them right into homelessness,” he said.

California’s struggle around homelessness has been a black eye and a contentious soft spot for years, and even the most sympathetic of Californians are tired of the squalor and pain. A recent poll by Politico and the Citrin Center for Public Opinion Research at UC Berkeley found that about 37% of voters support arresting folks if they refuse to accept shelter, and that number jumped for male voters and Republicans.

Homelessness is, without a doubt, “the issue that defines more anger and frustration of Californians than any other,” as Newsom put it.

On the same day Newsom put out his legal template for clearing encampments, he also announced $3.3 billion in funding for 124 mental health facilities around the state. It’s money from last year’s Proposition 1, passed by voters, that will add 5,000 residential treatment beds and more than 21,000 outpatient slots to our struggling system of mental health and substance abuse treatment.

The grants include $65 million for Los Angeles to refurbish the Metropolitan State Hospital campus in Norwalk into a psychiatric subacute facility for transitional-age youths, a big and glaring need for the region.

To steal from the history lesson Newsom gave, in 1959 this state had 37,000 mental health beds in locked facilities, the kind that inspired “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.” Not ideal.

So the state did away with them, through a series of necessary reforms. But it never built the community-based system that was promised. California is now down to 5,500 locked beds and a bunch of overcrowded, understaffed, outdated jails and prisons that have become our de facto mental health treatment centers, along with the streets. Not ideal.

This investment in a robust community care system that provides both substance abuse and mental health treatment in one place is a huge win for all Californians, and will be a game changer — in about 10 years. Newsom optimistically showed pretty renderings of facilities that will be built with the funds, one even expected to open next year. But folks, building takes time.

Still, Newsom should receive all credit due for taking on a problem ignored for decades and doing something meaningful around it. I’ve seen him act thoughtfully, carefully and forcefully on the issue of homelessness.

Which makes this encampment right-wing swing all the more obviously political, and unworthy of our policy.

Despite those encampments, homelessness in California is actually getting better, though you have to wade through the numbers to see it. There were 187,000 people living without homes in the state last year, according to federal data, a record. About 70% of those people were living unsheltered, more than 45,000 in the city of Los Angeles.

Although the sheer number of people living without homes is overwhelming, it represented an increase of about 3% — compared with an increase of about 18% nationally. Across the country, but not in California, families were the group with the largest single-year increase.

So what we are doing, with policies that prioritize housing and meeting people where they are, is working. What Newsom has done to build a community care system is overdue and revolutionary.

But the fact remains that California does not have enough housing. Clearing encampments may be a political solution to an ugly problem.

But without a place to move people, it’s just optics.

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — The first time President Trump visited Riyadh in 2017, he posed with a ceremonial orb, took part in a traditional sword dance and secured an agreement by Saudi Arabia to purchase $350 billion in weaponry, the largest arms deal in U.S. history.

The sequel, coming eight years later — almost to the day — promises much the same in the way of pageantry and purchases, only more so.

Even before the trip, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman vowed he would invest about $600 billion over the four years of Trump’s presidency (Trump asked him to round it up to $1 trillion).

And although the orb will probably not make an appearance this time around, Trump is bringing with him a phalanx of business leaders for a Saudi-U.S. business summit Tuesday — the day he arrives — that will include BlackRock Chief Executive Larry Fink, OpenAI’s Sam Altman, Palantir Technologies’ Alex Karp, Tesla’s Elon Musk and Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg.

The heads of other major firms, including IBM, Boeing, Qualcomm and Alphabet, also will attend. White House artificial intelligence and crypto czar David Sacks, meanwhile, is already in Riyadh.

Trump will then attend a summit with gulf leaders on Wednesday, travel to Qatar that same day and end the trip Thursday in the United Arab Emirates. There will be more gifts: The UAE has pledged $1.4 trillion in U.S. investment packages over the next decade.

“Trump is there to solidify a very close relationship,” said Ali Shihabi, a political and economic expert who is close to the Saudi government, adding that although he did not expect a breakthrough on security matters, the deals signed would nevertheless bring “economic ties and coordination to a very high level.”

Not to be outdone by its two regional competitors, Qatar is in discussions about the “possible transfer” of a luxury Boeing 747-8 to replace Air Force One.

Before departing on the current Air Force One, Trump found himself defending plans to accept the gift, which is thought to cost hundreds of millions of dollars. He dismissed those with concerns over the ethics and constitutionality of the gift as “stupid people,” suggesting he planned to proceed with it, a topic sure to fuel questions over his visit to Doha, the Qatari capital.

Trump also visited Saudi Arabia on the first international trip of his first term, breaking a presidential tradition of visiting U.S. allies and major trade partners such as the United Kingdom and European countries. That Trump chose the gulf region as his first destination, commentators say, reflects the Mideast’s growing centrality to the U.S. in terms of political and security partners. (Technically, this is not his first overseas trip since returning to the White House because he attended the recent funeral of Pope Francis.)

“The gulf nations succeeded in positioning themselves in a way that lets them play constructive roles in several issues,” said Hasan Alhasan, senior fellow for Middle East policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in Bahrain. He pointed out that Saudi Arabia has sponsored talks between Russia and Ukraine and was involved in peacemaking efforts in Sudan.

Qatar is a driving force in negotiations between Israel and Hamas and has helped to stabilize Syria. Oman, which is not on the itinerary but whose leader will take part in the summit, is hosting high-level talks between the U.S. and Iran.

“Trump is not tied to the protocols of other presidents. He sees an overlap in aims, whether political or commercial,” Alhasan said.

Israel is watching the visit with consternation on a host of fronts, expecting Trump to hear an earful from Arab governments on its continuing conflict with Hamas militants in Gaza and the role Israel is playing in the future of Syria. And Israeli officials are increasingly concerned that their voices will be drowned out as the Trump administration progresses in its negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program.

Any hint from Trump that he would tolerate the Iranians continuing with a civilian nuclear program will send reverberations throughout Washington, particularly on Capitol Hill, where Republicans have long opposed allowing Iran to continue any enrichment of uranium on its soil.

Trump also appears unconcerned with limits placed by his predecessors on what countries can receive from the U.S. He has reportedly revoked the AI diffusion rule, the U.S. policy intended to control the export of advanced semiconductor chips and AI, paving the way for gulf nations to ramp up their already considerable advanced chip holdings.

That’s especially true for the UAE, whose $1.4-trillion investment will be heavily weighted toward AI. Meanwhile, MGX, an investment fund based in the Emirati capital, Abu Dhabi, has pledged $100 billion in energy infrastructures and data centers in the U.S. to support AI.

At the same time, G42, another UAE-based AI firm, has divested from Chinese companies and partnered with Microsoft in an attempt to appease U.S. lawmakers.

There have also been reports that Trump will revive potential arms deals that were on the table from his first term but were never completed, including sales of F-35 fighter jets and Reaper drones to the UAE, and the co-production of advanced missiles with Saudi Arabia, said Prem Thakker, a partner with the global advisory firm DGA and a former official with the National Security Council under President Obama.

Another issue on the table could be nuclear power for Saudi Arabia. President Biden made supporting a civilian nuclear program for the kingdom contingent on Riyadh agreeing to a peace deal with Israel similar to the Abraham Accords, the normalization agreements forged with the UAE, Bahrain and others during Trump’s first term.

Under Trump, that condition appears to have been dropped, with negotiations that could potentially allow Saudi Arabia to capitalize on its uranium reserves and a domestic enrichment program.

“And this means that traditional nonproliferation concerns over Saudi Arabia have really subsided over the last few years,” Thakker said. “Twenty years ago no one in the U.S. would have contemplated such an agreement.”

The trip dovetails with a raft of investments involving the Trump Organization. Its real-estate development arm, which is led by Trump’s son Eric, has announced since last year construction projects across the gulf region, including a $2-billion golf course in Qatar, an 80-story hotel and residential tower in Dubai and two Trump towers in Saudi Arabia — one in Riyadh and one in Jeddah.

Though the deals appear gargantuan, experts say financial realities will cut them down to size. Many point out that Saudi Arabia’s investments during Trump’s first term did not reach the $450 billion he mentioned (the figure includes nonmilitary spending). Even the most generous of calculations would put the Saudi investments at less than $300 billion, experts say.

Though its investments in the U.S. are likely to increase during Trump’s second term, Riyadh has focused much of its spending on gigaprojects such as NEOM. And current oil prices sitting below the government’s break-even price of around $100 a barrel means that it will be running a deficit, said David Butter, a Middle East energy expert at Chatham House, a think tank in London.

He added that the Saudi government and its colossal sovereign fund, the Public Investment Fund, both of which own a part of Saudi oil giant Aramco, have not received performance-linked dividends for this year. The result, Butter said, is a looming financial crisis.

“The investment numbers are fantasy,” he said.

Bulos reported from Riyadh and Wilner from Washington.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Monday signed a sweeping executive order setting a 30-day deadline for drugmakers to lower the cost of prescription drugs in the U.S. or face new limits on what the government will pay.

The order calls on the Health and Human Services Department, led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., to broker new price tags for drugs. If a deal is not reached, a new rule will kick in that will tie the price of what the U.S. pays for medications to lower prices paid by other countries.

“We’re going to equalize,” Trump said during a Monday morning news conference. “We’re all going to pay the same. We’re going to pay what Europe pays.”

It’s unclear what — if any — impact the Republican president’s executive order will have on millions of Americans who have private health insurance. The federal government has the most power to shape the price it pays for drugs covered by Medicare and Medicaid.

The federal government spends hundreds of billions of dollars on prescription drugs, injectables, transfusions and other medications every year through Medicare, which covers nearly 70 million older Americans. Medicaid, meanwhile, covers nearly 80 million poor and disabled people in the United States.

Ahead of the signing, the nation’s leading pharmaceutical lobby on Sunday pushed back against Trump’s plan, calling it a “bad deal” for American patients. Drugmakers have long argued that any threats to their profits could impact the research they do to develop new drugs.

“Importing foreign prices will cut billions of dollars from Medicare with no guarantee that it helps patients or improves their access to medicines,” Stephen J. Ubl, the president and chief executive of PhRMA, said in a statement. “It jeopardizes the hundreds of billions our member companies are planning to invest in America, making us more reliant on China for innovative medicines.”

Trump’s so-called most favored nation approach to Medicare drug pricing has been controversial since he first tried to implement it during his first term. He signed a similar executive order in the final weeks of his first presidential term, calling for the U.S. to only pay a lower price that other countries pay for some drugs — injectables or cancer drugs given through infusions — administered in a doctor’s office.

That narrow executive order faced hurdles, with a court order that blocked the rule from going into effect under President Biden’s administration. The pharmaceutical industry argued that Trump’s 2020 attempt would give foreign governments the “upper hand” in deciding the value of medicines in the United States.

Trump repeatedly defended pharmaceutical companies, instead blaming other countries for the high price Americans pay for drugs, during a wide-ranging speech at the White House on Monday. The president was flanked by Kennedy, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz, Food and Drug Administration commissioner Dr. Marty Makary and National Institutes of Health director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.

He did, however, threaten the companies with federal investigations into their practices and opening up the U.S. drug market to bring in more imported medications from other countries.

“The pharmaceutical companies make most of their profits from America,” Trump said. “That’s not a good thing.”

Trump has played up the announcement, saying it will save taxpayers big money. He boasted in one post that his plan could save “TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS.”

“Our Country will finally be treated fairly, and our citizens Healthcare Costs will be reduced by numbers never even thought of before,” Trump said in another post ahead of Monday’s announcement.

The White House did not release an analysis of how much money his order would save or which drugs would be affected.

Oz, speaking on Monday, said that he and the agency’s other top leaders would be meeting with drug company executives over the next 30 days to offer new prices on drugs that are based off what other countries pay.

The Health and Human Services Department has the most authority to change the prices of drugs covered by Medicare and Medicaid because it can set regulations. Even still, the agency’s power to do so is limited. Congress just approved in 2022 a new law that allows Medicare to negotiate the price it pays for a handful of prescription drugs starting in 2026. Prior to the law, Medicare paid what the drug companies charged. Drug companies unsuccessfully sued over the implementation of the law.

The price that millions of Americans covered by private insurance pay for drugs is even harder for the agency to manipulate.

The U.S. routinely outspends other nations on drug prices, compared with other large and wealthy countries, a problem that has long drawn the ire of both major political parties, but a lasting fix has never cleared Congress.

Trump came into his first term accusing pharmaceutical companies of “getting away with murder” and complaining that other countries whose governments set drug prices were taking advantage of Americans.

On Sunday, Trump took aim at the industry again, writing that the “Pharmaceutical/Drug Companies would say, for years, that it was Research and Development Costs, and that all of these costs were, and would be, for no reason whatsoever, borne by the ‘suckers’ of America, ALONE.”

Referring to drug companies’ powerful lobbying efforts, he said that campaign contributions “can do wonders, but not with me, and not with the Republican Party.”

“We are going to do the right thing,” he wrote.

Seitz and Kim write for the Associated Press. AP writer Will Weissert contributed to this report.

NEW YORK — American businesses that rely on Chinese goods reacted with muted relief Monday after the U.S. and China agreed to pause their exorbitant tariffs on each other’s products for 90 days.

Importers still face relatively high tariffs, however, as well as uncertainty over what will happen in the coming weeks and months. Many businesses delayed or canceled orders after President Trump last month put a 145% tariff on items made in China.

Now, they’re concerned a mad scramble to get goods onto ships will lead to bottlenecks and increased shipping costs. The temporary truce was announced as retailers and their suppliers are looking to finalize their plans and orders for the holiday shopping season.

“The timing couldn’t have been any worse with regard to placing orders, so turning on a dime to pick back up with customers and our factories will put us severely behind schedule,” said WS Game Company owner Jonathan Silva, whose Massachusetts business creates deluxe versions of Monopoly, Scrabble and other Hasbro board games.

Silva said the 30% tariff on Chinese imports still is a step in the right direction. He has nine containers of products waiting at factories in China and said he would work to get them exported at the lower rate.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the U.S. agreed to lower its 145% tariff rate on Chinese goods by 115 percentage points, while China agreed to lower its retaliatory 125% rate on U.S. goods by the same amount. The two sides plan to continue negotiations on a longer-term trade deal.

National Retail Federation President and CEO Matthew Shay said the move was a “critical first step to provide some short-term relief for retailers and other businesses that are in the midst of ordering merchandise for the winter holiday season.”

The news sent the stock market and the value of the dollar soaring, a lift that eluded business owners confronting another dizzying shift.

Marc Rosenberg, founder and CEO of Edge Desk in Deerfield, Ill., invested millions of dollars to develop a line of $1,000 ergonomic chairs but delayed production in China that was set to begin this month, hoping for a tariff reprieve.

Rosenberg said it was good U.S.-China trade talks were ongoing but that he thinks the 90-day window is “beyond dangerous” since shipping delays could result in his chairs still being en route when the temporary deal ends.

“There needs to be a plan in place that lasts a year or two so people can plan against it,” he said.

Jeremy Rice, the co-owner of a Lexington, Kentucky, home-décor shop that specializes in artificial flower arrangements, said the limited pause makes him unsure how to approach pricing. About 90% of the flowers House uses are made in China. He stocked up on inventory and then paused shipments in April.

“Our vendors are still kind of running around juggling, not knowing what they’re gonna do,” Rice said. “We ordered in what we could pre-tariff and so there’s stock here, but we’re getting to the point now where there’s things that are gone and we’re going to have to figure out how we’re gonna approach it.”

“There’s no relief,” he added. “It’s just kind of like you’re just waiting for the next shoe to drop.”

Before Trump started the latest U.S. tariff battle with China, Miami-based game company All Things Equal was preparing to launch its first electronic board game. Founder Eric Poses said he spent two years developing “And the Good News Is,” a fill-in-the-blank game covering topics like politics and sports. He plowed $120,000 into research and development.

When the president in February added a 20% tariff on products made in China, Poses started removing unessential features such as embossed packaging. When the rate went up to 145%, he faced two options: leave the goods in China or send them to bonded warehouses, a storage method which allow importers to defer duty payments for up to five years.

Poses contacted his factories in China on Monday to arrange the deferred shipments, but with his games still subject to a 30% tariff, he said he would have to cut back on marketing to keep the electronic game priced at $29.99. With other businesses also in a rush to get their products, he said he is worried he won’t be able to his into shipping containers and that if he does, the cost will be much more expensive.

“It’s very hard to plan because if you want to go back to production in a couple of months, then you’re worried about what will the tariff rate be when it hits the U.S. ports after that 90-day period,” Poses said.

Jim Umlauf’s business, 4Knines, based in Oklahoma City, makes vehicle seat covers and cargo liners for dog owners and others. He imports raw materials such as fabric, coatings and components from China.

Umlauf said that even with a lower general tariff rate, it’s hard for small businesses to make a profit. He thinks the U.S. government should offer small business exclusions from the tariffs.

“I appreciate any progress being made on the tariff front, but unfortunately, we’re still far from a real solution — especially for small businesses like mine,” Umlauf said. “When tariffs exceed 50%, there’s virtually no profit left unless we dramatically raise prices — an option that risks alienating customers.”

Zou Guoqing, a Chinese exporter who supplies molds and parts to a snow-bike factory in Nebraska as well as fishing and hunting goods to a U.S. retailer in Texas, also thinks the remaining 30% tariff is too high to take comfort in.

With the possibility Washington and Beijing will negotiate over the 20% tariff Trump imposed due to what he described as China’s failure to stem the flow of fentanyl, Zou said he would wait until the end of May to decide when to resume shipments to the U.S.

Silva, of WS Game Company, said he planned to begin placing his holiday season orders this week but won’t be as bold as he might have been if the ultra-high tariff had been suspended for more than 90 day.

“We will order enough to get by and satisfy the demand we know will be there at the increased pricing needed, but until we get a solid foundation of a long-term agreement, the risks are still too high to be aggressive.”

Anderson and D’Innocenzio write for the Associated Press.

TUSCALOOSA, Ala. — Sama Ebrahimi Bajgani and her fiance, Alireza Doroudi, had just spent an evening celebrating the Persian new year at the University of Alabama when seven armed immigration officers came to their apartment before dawn and arrested Doroudi.

In a moment, the young couple’s life was upended.

“I was living a normal life until that night. After that nothing is just normal,” Bajgani said.

Details about Doroudi’s detention spread through the small Iranian community in Tuscaloosa, where Bajgani and Doroudi are doctoral students. Other Iranian students say they have been informally advised by faculty to “lay low” and “be invisible” — instilling fear among a once vibrant cohort.

Doroudi is among students across the U.S. who have been detained in recent weeks as part of President Trump’s immigration crackdown. Bajgani said the couple does not know why Doroudi — who has no criminal record or public political views — faces deportation, adding that Trump’s recent visit to the school made her feel like the university was “ignorant of our crisis.”

One Iranian civil engineering student and close friend to Doroudi said he has lost more than 10 pounds due to stress and depression in the six weeks since Doroudi was detained.

“It’s like all of us are waiting for our turn. It could be every knock, every email could be deportation,” said the student, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of concerns about losing his legal status.

He now avoids unnecessary trips outside. When he was in a car crash last month, he begged the other driver not to call the police, even though he wasn’t at fault, because he didn’t want to draw attention to himself.

‘I stayed with their permission’

Bajgani said Doroudi, 32, is an ambitious mechanical engineering student from Shiraz, Iran.

He entered the United States legally in January 2023 on a student visa. Bajgani said he often worked 60-hour weeks while still making time to run errands for loved ones.

“If someone like him doesn’t get to the place he deserves, there is nothing called the American dream,” she said.

Doroudi’s visa was revoked in June 2023, but the embassy didn’t provide a reason and ignored his inquiries, Bajgani said. The university told him he could stay as long as he remained a student but that he would not be allowed to reenter the U.S. if he left, she said.

He was operating under that guidance when immigration officers came to the couple’s door in March.

The University of Alabama didn’t comment on Doroudi’s case, but said it offers resources to help immigrants on campus comply with federal law. It also offers guidance to students whose visas are revoked.

“Our international students are valued members of our campus community,” university spokesperson Monica Watts said in a statement.

Doroudi told Bajgani he spent three days in a county jail, sleeping on a tile floor and feeling panicked.

He is now in a Louisiana immigration detention facility more than 300 miles from Tuscaloosa while he awaits a deportation hearing scheduled for next week. At least one other high-profile international student is there.

“I didn’t deserve this. If they had just sent me a letter asking me to appear in court, I would’ve come, because I didn’t do anything illegal. I stayed with their permission,” Doroudi said in a letter he dictated to Bajgani over the phone to provide his perspective to others. “What was the reason for throwing me in jail?”

Trump’s immigration crackdown

More than 1,000 international students across the U.S. have had their visas or legal status revoked since late March, according to an Associated Press review of university statements and correspondence with school officials. They included some who protested Israel’s war in Gaza. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has since reversed those revocations, including those of four University of Alabama students.

“University staff closely monitors changes that could affect them and has communicated updates related to new protocols and procedures,” Watts said.

A Louisiana judge who denied Doroudi bond in mid-April said he didn’t sufficiently prove that he wasn’t a national security threat, Doroudi’s lawyer, David Rozas said. Rozas said he was “flabbergasted” because the government hasn’t presented evidence that Doroudi is a threat, though that is what the Department of Homeland Security has alleged.

A familiar sense of fear

International students make up more than 13% of the statewide University of Alabama graduate program, according to the school’s website. More than 100 Iranian students attend the university, according to an estimate from the Iranian Student Assn.

Every year, many gather for a picnic to celebrate Sizdah Bedar, the 13th day of the Persian new year, which begins with spring.

This year, the typically festive holiday “felt like a funeral service,” one Iranian doctoral student said. At one point, silence fell over the group as a police car passed.

“It’s becoming too hard to be living here, to be yourself and thrive,” said the student, who spoke on condition of anonymity because she fears retaliation.

She has criticized the Iranian regime since arriving in the United States more than five years ago, so she suspects she is no longer safe in her home country. Now, she has those same doubts in Alabama.

“All of a sudden it feels like we’re returning back to Iran again,” she said.

Riddle writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — China and the United States retreated from an emerging economic crisis on Monday, agreeing to drastically reduce tariffs on one another for the next 90 days as they continue to negotiate a more permanent trade deal, providing welcome news for investors and retailers who increasingly feared a breakthrough was out of reach.

The temporary truce will see the United States lower tariffs on Chinese imports to 30% from 145%, and China reduce its import duties on U.S. goods to 10% from 125%, starting Wednesday. Wall Street rejoiced at the announcement of a deal, with the Dow Jones industrial average, the Standard & Poor’s 500 and the Nasdaq all up more than 2%.

Trump referred to the development as a “total reset with China.” But the end result of the provisional agreement is a return to tariff rates that were in place before the president launched a global trade war on April 2, in what he called “Liberation Day” — a move that brought the largest decline in commercial shipping traffic since the COVID-19 pandemic and prompted financial institutions to warn of an imminent recession.

Supply shortages and price increases on Chinese products may still hit American consumers in the coming weeks, a lingering effect of weeks of uncertainty, experts said. Many retailers have already increased their prices. And shipping costs are expected to skyrocket as manufacturers and wholesalers attempt to make up for lost time. The 90-day deadline for a more lasting trade deal could fuel further market volatility in the coming weeks.

Trump’s Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, who led the negotiations with Beijing, also secured a commitment from China to cut non-tariff barriers it had put in place after April 2, including certain import restrictions and blacklisting of U.S. companies.

“It de-escalates trade tensions and reduces the probability of a stagflation,” said Sung Won Sohn, a former commissioner at the Port of Los Angeles, referring to a phenomenon feared the world over by economists: a combination of slow economic growth, high inflation and increasing unemployment. “But this is a temporary truce. A tough road is ahead of us.”

Over the next three months, the Trump administration says it intends to develop a “mechanism” that will “rebalance” the U.S. trade relationship with China — a task that has eluded presidents for decades. Trump hopes to change Beijing’s policy of providing government subsidies to state-owned enterprises and to reduce a $400-billion U.S. trade deficit with China, both tall orders in such a short time frame.

“Supply chains have been disrupted and there are a lot fewer ships sailing the ocean,” Sohn added. “Supplies in stores won’t be as plentiful as it used to be. During the back-to-school season, for example, there will be shortages, stockouts and higher prices. If the negotiation progresses well, there will be more merchandise at retail stores for back-to-school and Christmas.”

After the deal concluded in Geneva, Bessent said he would draw inspiration in the upcoming talks from a preliminary agreement negotiated with Beijing at the end of the first Trump administration called Phase One, which included new rules governing the exchange of intellectual property, technology transfer and financial services. Bessent claimed that deal was not enforced by the Biden administration.

But the Treasury secretary acknowledged that the upcoming talks would be difficult. “Neither side wants a decoupling,” he said.

“I don’t think anything’s going to be easy, because this has been going on for a long time,” Bessent told CNBC.

Before departing for an official visit to the Middle East, Trump said he expected to speak with Chinese President Xi Jinping and praised the agreement as a temporary step toward a permanent deal. The truce, Trump added, does not include tariffs on cars, steel and aluminum.

He also spoke with Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook shortly after announcing the deal, Trump said.

“The relationship is very good. We’re not looking to hurt China — China was being hurt very badly,” the president told reporters at the White House. “They were very happy to be able to do something with us.”

Trump said that pharmaceuticals may also be exempt from tariff reductions with China going forward, speaking at a signing ceremony for an executive order aimed at lowering drug prices.

The majority of the world’s pharmaceuticals are manufactured in China and India. But Trump reserved his harshest critique at the event for the European Union, which produces several high-profile drugs, including Ozempic and Wegovy, weight loss medications that Trump said are heavily overpriced in the United States.

“The European Union is in many ways nastier than China,” Trump said, adding: “We’ve just started with them.”

“We have all the cards,” he said. “They treated us very unfairly.”